1 Monday, 14 January 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.30 p.m.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Good afternoon. Please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Case number
8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav
9 Tadic, and Simo Zaric.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Before we proceed with the witness, the Trial
11 Chamber has noticed that there is an application for a certificate by the
12 Defence, and there is also an application for -- before the Appeals
13 Chamber for leave to appeal, and there is also the decision of the duty
14 Judge on the matter. So the Trial Chamber wants to know what the Defence
15 has decided to do.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours, and Happy New Year to
17 all colleagues present here.
18 The position of the Defence is that we don't have any particular
19 interest to follow one or the other way. If this Trial Chamber will grant
20 our application for a certificate, obviously it will be in the interest of
21 the speediness of this trial and proceedings, which means that, in that
22 case, we are not -- we shall not be in situation to wait for the decision
23 of the bench of three Judges in Appeals Chamber, and then we could proceed
24 with the appeal because this specific issue is, from our point of view, is
25 very important, because we are facing certain limits and problems with
1 regard to the testimony of today's present witness and the other witnesses
2 with regard to the amendment of the indictment.
3 So in short, we would prefer, based on our application, that this
4 certificate will be given. Thank you.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: In that case, then, are you going to withdraw your
6 application for leave to appeal?
7 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct, because we shall appeal directly
8 to the Appeals Chamber, in accordance with Rule 73, I suppose, (D).
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE MUMBA: I think the matter does not appear to be clear, Mr.
11 Pantelic, because if you look at 73(C) and (D), they are not alternatives
12 to one issue. They are separate provisions. So if your decision is that
13 you are going ahead with your application for a certificate, that is
14 73(C), and you are withdrawing the appeal, then you have to file the
15 notice for withdrawal before the Appeals Chamber.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. In fact, that would be a logical
17 step. Of course, we are ready to file this notice, but you can understand
18 this specific situation where we were obliged to act in a time limit of
19 seven days. So in order not to -- not to go beyond this time limit, we
20 decided to file both applications according to Rule 73 Sub-rule (C), which
21 is a certificate, and also (D) Sub-rule (ii)(E).
22 JUDGE MUMBA: But you appreciate that this appeal you're trying to
23 get on is an interlocutory appeal.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, this is interlocutory appeal, yes.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Which, if you look at 73(C), interlocutory appeals
1 are not allowed except if they fall under, as provision (C) provides,
2 where you need the appeal decided if it concerns evidence of procedure and
3 is appropriate for the continuation of the trial.
4 MR. PANTELIC: That is correct. Our understanding is that the --
5 this particular situation is falling under the ambit of this Rule, because
6 first of all, interlocutory appeal is allowed if the issue is related to
7 general importance to proceeding before the Tribunal or International
8 Court, which I would not say it's our case, but we are focusing to the
9 general -- the issue of general importance to the proceedings before this
10 Tribunal. And then we think that this certificate will allow us to file
11 our appeal directly to Appeals Chamber, dealing with these particular
12 issues, which are also related to procedure, because in
13 Sub-rule (C) of Rule 73, we have -- we have practically twofold issues,
14 which is the evidence or procedure, and we think that we are dealing with
15 procedure here.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. In that case, then, the Trial Chamber
17 will wait for your withdrawal of the appeal, once you've filed the notice
18 of withdrawal, and then we'll hear your submissions on your application
19 for certificate under (C) and then we can make our decision.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Well, Your Honour, with all due respect, I think it
21 would be, to some extent, dangerous for the Defence to withdraw our motion
22 for leave to appeal and then to wait for your decision with regard to the
23 certificate. For example, theoretically, if we shall not be in possession
24 of the certificate and at the same time our application for leave to
25 appeal will be withdrawn, then we shall be --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: But you see, Mr. Pantelic, (C) and (D) are
2 different. The certificate is not intended to aid you to appeal. The
3 certificate can only be granted under different circumstances from (D).
4 Did you read the decision of the duty Judge?
5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course, Your Honour, but allow me to say
6 that this -- that was the angle of view of duty Judge. Defence and all of
7 my colleagues, we have the other approach to this issue. So that would be
8 wise if we could clarify.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. In that case, the Trial Chamber's view
10 is you should file your notice of withdrawal under (D), and then we'll go
11 ahead and deal with (C), 73(C). You'll make your submissions then.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Of course, I would kindly ask whichever this
13 appropriate time for the conference, short conference with my colleague
14 during the break this afternoon --
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
16 MR. PANTELIC: -- so we could inform Trial Chamber about our, I
17 would say our final position with regard to this issue. Thank you.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: So we'll proceed with the witness.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry, Your Honours. My mistake. If I -- if I
20 could have a few more seconds. We are facing a rather specific situation
21 now, because if I would understand, to the best of my knowledge, prior to
22 the Christmas break, this witness was to give his evidence with regard to
23 the issue which was introduced in the amended indictment.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
25 MR. PANTELIC: Our position is the following: Firstly, we have to
1 inform this Trial Chamber that our clients are not in possession of the
2 fourth amended indictment in their language, their native language, B/C/S,
3 which means that that could be a certain obstacle for the further
5 Secondly, we are of the opinion that this specific issue with
6 regard to the topics introduced in the -- in the fourth amended indictment
7 are of significant importance for the -- for this trial in general. We
8 think -- and therefore for this reason we filed our motion for leave to
10 We think that the Prosecution should not be allowed to amend
11 indictment with this particular -- with these particular charges,
12 allegations, of course, because the Prosecution was in possession of all
13 relevant statements and evidences --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, you're trying to make your submissions
15 as if we are hearing the appeal. Those are submissions before the Appeals
16 Chamber if you elect to go ahead.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, but since we don't have any final answer and
18 response from the Appeals Chamber, we think that it would not be
19 appropriate now to hear this portion of witness testimony related to the
20 allegations -- related to allegations for destruction of the religious
21 institution and so on. And I think that that would be our first, first
22 part of our submission with regard to the -- to this particular issue, and
23 my learned colleagues are in situation to give you additional information
24 which might facilitate these proceedings, if you allow.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Who is going to make submissions? Yes,
1 Ms. Baen?
2 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, I think this is becoming confusing because
3 we're trying not to create any problem that displeases the Trial Chamber,
4 and the confusion came in where the motion for interlocutory appeal was
5 filed and 73(C) and (D) were confused because we were trying to not create
6 a huge problem.
7 The position of the Defence is that we don't feel that this trial
8 can continue until this panel that the President appointed gives us an
9 answer on the issue that we filed for -- for which we filed for
10 interlocutory appeal.
11 Rule 73(D) uses a language and issues appropriate for
12 interlocutory appeal if it would cause -- the decision would cause
13 prejudice to the Defence that can't be cured by the final disposal of the
14 trial, including post judgement appeal.
15 The whole point, Your Honour, is we feel like the safer thing to
16 do is to wait until this three-Judge panel makes a decision on this issue,
17 and that would be the safer route to take instead of if we continue to go
18 through the trial and this witness starts testifying about the evidence
19 with respect to destruction of religious property, we get to the end of
20 the trial, and at that point, after -- if the defendants are convicted, at
21 that point the Appeals Chamber says, "Whoa, the Defence may have had a
22 point there. Maybe they should have had some time to address this issue."
23 I think the safer position is to give this three-Judge panel time to
24 answer the issue instead of wait until the end of the trial and waste all
25 the time in the trial, possibly.
1 And I will tell you this also: My co-counsel told me - and I
2 haven't discussed this with the other Defence counsel - but he told me
3 that our investigators have not had adequate time to investigate the new
4 -- these new allegations. They're new to us. I will just tell you that
5 they haven't been investigated by our investigators. The allegations that
6 are mentioned in the fourth amended indictment, about the destruction of
7 religious property, there's a new date that was mentioned and we just got
8 that information on January 9 of this year. The time frame when these
9 crimes were allegedly committed were from September 1991 to December 31st,
11 We just found this information out on January 9th. Therefore, we
12 haven't had adequate time to address this -- these allegations. We're not
13 prepared. And that's all we're saying, is the safer route would be for
14 the Appeals Chamber to answer -- or this panel to answer the question
15 about this issue and then we continue after that decision's been made.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: No. That confuses the earlier submission by the
17 Defence. So are you withdrawing your application for the certificate?
18 MS. BAEN: I will tell you -- on behalf of our clients, we're not
19 withdrawing the interlocutory appeal. I haven't discussed with our client
20 about the certificate because we were waiting to see what the Trial
21 Chamber was going to tell us this afternoon. But at least on behalf of
22 our client, we're not withdrawing the application for interlocutory appeal
23 because that's a huge gamble because then, if Your Honours don't certify
24 the issue, we've lost our right to argue under Rule 73(E).
25 JUDGE MUMBA: But we don't seem to be getting anywhere. You are
1 now standing up on behalf of your client, you are now saying you won't
2 withdraw your application for leave to appeal, we go ahead with the
4 MS. BAEN: All I'm saying, Your Honour, is on behalf of my client,
5 and I don't know if I speak for the others, we feel that we have to have a
6 stay in the proceedings until this three-Judge panel says whatever it's
7 going to say on this issue that we raised. That's it. And we feel like
8 it's dangerous for the trial to continue. If this evidence comes in on
9 this destruction of religious institutions and then at the end of the
10 trial the Appeals Chamber said, "Whoa, maybe that shouldn't have come in,
11 then all this time is potentially wasted when the safer position is to let
12 them answer the question. It may take two days. That's a lot better than
13 wasting years.
14 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I'm just wondering why therefore no one from the
15 Defence made any objections when the Prosecution was showing earlier
16 witnesses the photographs in the bundle. I forget what the Prosecution
17 evidence number is, but we saw those photographs of what appear to be just
18 two grass plots one, one where the mosque was and one where the
19 Catholic church was. There was no objection posed then. Likewise, with
20 at least two of the earlier witnesses, we heard about the issue of -- I
21 believe it was the mosque in Odzak being blown up. There was some
22 controversy, I think, as to who actually did the blowing up, but again,
23 those issues were raised then and there was -- there was no objection.
24 MS. BAEN: I'll tell you exactly why, Your Honour. First of all,
25 they weren't allegations in the indictment. There's been a lot of
1 information, a lot of testimony coming from these witnesses that has not
2 been tied to these defendants as crimes, and I guess we could have
3 objected and say it's not relevant because it's not in the indictment, but
4 this isn't a jury trial. We've got three sophisticated Judges here; you
5 decide what's relevant and what's not relevant. And it wasn't an
6 allegation in the indictment so we didn't feel that they were pointing the
7 finger at us and saying, "These guys are responsible for destruction of
8 those mosques," because that was never said, and that's why we didn't
10 JUDGE MUMBA: May I get it clear. So for the Defence --
11 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Defence for Mr. Milan Simic, do I take it
13 you would like to go ahead with your submission on the certificate?
14 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, if I might discuss this with my
15 co-counsel. We have not discussed this yet.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 MS. BAEN: Thank you.
18 [Defence counsel confer]
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen?
20 MS. BAEN: Yes, Your Honour. On behalf of all the Defence
21 counsel, we withdraw our request under Rule 73(C) for the certificate from
22 the Trial Chamber, but we are not going to withdraw our interlocutory
23 appeal application.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So may I have confirmation that's the
25 position, the application for the certificate under Rule 73(C) is
2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, on behalf of Mr. Blagoje Simic
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, on behalf of the Defence
5 of Mr. Miroslav Tadic, we join the request of Mr. Milan Simic.
6 MR. LAZAREVIC: [Interpretation] On behalf of the Simo Zaric
7 Defence, we support the position of Milan Simic Defence and this is also
8 our position
9 in the situation.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. So the -- so the request for a
11 certificate based on Rule 73(C) filed on December 26, 2001 is hereby
12 withdrawn by all the defendants.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought my mike was on. The request for a
15 certificate based on Rule 73(C) on behalf of all the defendants is hereby
17 There is no stay of proceedings, and the proceedings will
19 Yes. The Prosecution can go ahead.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. If Your Honours please, I take it, then, you
21 don't wish to hear from the Prosecution on the issue raised by Ms. Baen.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Which one?
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Namely whether or not this evidence should simply
24 be held over until the appeal is disposed of. The position of the
25 Prosecution, of course, is --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution can make submissions, yes.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: -- that you are professional Judges, sitting
3 without a jury, and that you are quite capable, therefore, of excluding
4 from your consideration evidence of damage or destruction of places of
5 worship should it eventuate that the Appeals Chamber decides that it
6 should not have been admitted, and that is the position of the Prosecution
7 on that particular topic. [redacted]
9 [Trial Chamber confers]
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Ms. Baen?
11 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, at the very least, we're requesting --
12 making a formal request that a copy of the fourth amended indictment be
13 served upon the defendants in their language, because we've only received
14 the fourth amended indictment in English, and I believe the defendants are
15 entitled to receive it in their own language. It is the most important
16 document in the trial, and we feel like they also, after they receive a
17 copy in their language, they should be provided an opportunity to enter a
18 plea to the new allegations.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. I would like to ask the Prosecution on
20 the translation of the fourth amended indictment.
21 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour. On that -- on that matter, I
22 can only say that we filed the indictment signed in English, and as with
23 the indictment -- as with the previous annexes and draft amendments, we
24 understood that to ensure the consistency of translation, et cetera, it
25 would be dealt within the Registry CLSS after it was filed. So we don't
1 actually have any direct control over that translation, and I should also
2 say we didn't request that it be urgently expedited; we presumed that it
3 would be done as it was filed. But if it would assist in making that
4 quicker, the Prosecution could, of course, request that.
5 I would note that the Defence have had, in their own language,
6 translated all the proposed wording and amendments. I -- because of the
7 terms of the Trial Chamber's decision and specifically because the Trial
8 Chamber requested that we be more particular with respect to dates and
9 specific buildings in our wording, it would be the case that the
10 defendants will not have seen that precise wording but they will have seen
11 the wording of our proposed amendments. To be honest, I think if it's a
12 matter of a date or that, it could be something that the counsel could
13 confer and get instructions from their clients on as I believe they did
14 prior to filing their response in general to the amended indictment, but
15 that's all I can say --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe the thing is to have the amended indictment
17 read to them, then it could be simultaneously interpreted and then you can
18 go ahead.
19 MS. REIDY: I'd be happy to do that if you wish me to do it, or
20 the registry. And the only other thing, the Prosecution would object to
21 any formal re-entering of a plea, as Ms. Baen has suggested, because as is
22 our position and as I understand from the Trial Chamber's decision, these
23 are not new charges. It is not a question of a new indictment about where
24 charges -- where a plea should be entered pursuant to the Rules and I
25 wouldn't like that to be done in case there's any confusion as to the
1 nature of the amendment.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It's just the new particulars that will come
3 into the fourth amended indictment. So there are no new charges at all.
4 So it's a question of having those parts of the indictment read so that
5 the accused can hear them in their own language or in a language they
7 MS. REIDY: Would Your Honour prefer me to read that out or a
8 member of the Registry?
9 JUDGE MUMBA: No. It's usually the Registry. It's actually the
10 additional paragraphs. If the -- yes. If the Prosecution can point them
11 out so that -- one at a time, and then they can be read out and then
13 MS. REIDY: Sorry. Would you like me to approach the Registry and
14 point them out?
15 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Go ahead and read them from where you are. You
16 point out the paragraphs.
17 MS. REIDY: Certainly. And, Your Honour, could I just clarify?
18 Would you like me to point out every paragraph to which there's been an
19 amendment or only those paragraphs where the amendment relates to the
20 destruction of religious property, or also the other harmonisation of
21 language amendments so to speak?
22 JUDGE MUMBA: No, only those ones with destruction of property and
23 the other ones where we have the new capacities of the -- for criminal
25 MS. REIDY: The first amendment comes in, I believe, paragraph
1 14(F). Do you want to read it?
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. 14(F).
3 THE REGISTRAR: "The destruction or wilful damage of institutions
4 dedicated to religion, namely two Catholic churches, one in the town of
5 Bosanski Samac about and between August 1992 and January 1993, and the
6 other in the village of Hrvatska Tisina, about and between April 1992 and
7 August 1992, and two mosques, one in the town of Bosanski Samac, and
8 between August 1992 and November 1992, and the other in the town of Odzak
9 in or about July 1992."
10 MS. REIDY: Paragraph 15, the operative paragraph has been
11 slightly amended to reflect the responsibility of the defendant Blagoje
12 Simic so the words "acting in concert with others" has been added. So it
13 may be necessary to read that out. 15 and 15(G), which is identical to
14 the one you've just read.
15 THE REGISTRAR: "From or on about 17 April, 1992 through to at
16 least December 31, 1993, Blagoje Simic, both prior to and while serving as
17 president of the Bosanski Samac --"
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could you please slow down for the
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Could you slow down.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Sorry. " ... of the War Presidency, acting in
22 concert with others, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise
23 aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of the crime of
24 persecutions as described in paragraphs 13 and 14 above through his
25 participation in the following acts or omissions, among others:
1 "(G) --"
2 JUDGE MUMBA: (G) is exactly is the same as 14(F), isn't it?
3 MS. REIDY: Yes.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: And it runs through which paragraphs?
5 MS. REIDY: Paragraphs 14(F), 15(G), 17(F) and 18 (G) are all
6 identical --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Identical to what was read in paragraph 14 --
8 MS. REIDY: 14(F).
9 JUDGE MUMBA: 14(F), yes, so we don't need to repeat those.
10 MS. REIDY: Certainly not on behalf of the Prosecution, Your
12 JUDGE MUMBA: That is all, isn't it? Any other --
13 MS. REIDY: No. The operative parts of paragraph, paragraphs 16,
14 17, and 18, which are very similar to 15 but involve each of the
15 individual defendants, they have also been amended so that the same
16 wording that was used in paragraphs -- or in 13 and 14 was reflected in
17 15, 16, 17, and 18.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: So the next one should be 16.
19 MS. REIDY: 16, 17, and 18, just the operative --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Paragraphs. Okay. So we can have paragraph 16,
22 THE REGISTRAR: "From on or about 17 April 1992 through February
23 1993, Milan Simic, both prior to and while serving as President of the
24 Executive Board of the Bosanski Samac assembly and as a member of the Serb
25 Crisis Staff, acting in concert with others planned, instigated, ordered,
1 committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or
2 execution of the crime of persecutions as described in paragraphs 13 and
3 14 above, through his participation in the following acts or omissions,
4 among others."
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Uh-huh. Proceed to paragraph 17 -- paragraph 17 and
6 paragraph 18.
7 THE REGISTRAR: 17: "From about September 1991 to at least
8 December 31 -- 31 December 1993, Miroslav Tadic, both prior to and while
9 serving as a member and as chairman of the Exchange Commission and as a
10 member of the Serb Crisis Staff, acting in concert with others planned,
11 instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the
12 planning, preparation or execution of the crime of persecutions as
13 described in paragraphs 13 and 14 above through his participation in the
14 following acts or omissions, among others."
15 18 --
16 MS. REIDY: Sorry, may I interrupt?
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
18 MS. REIDY: Because there is also an amendment to 17(E), that
19 would be the inclusion of the wards "wanton and extensive," it may be
20 appropriate if, since we're working our way through the indictment, if the
21 registrar reads out 17(E) as well before proceeding to 18.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. Yes. So 17(E).
23 THE REGISTRAR: 17(E): "The wanton and extensive destruction,
24 plundering and looting of the property of Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims
25 and other non-Serb civilians, including dwellings, businesses, personal
1 property and livestock"
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Then we go to paragraph 18.
3 THE REGISTRAR: "From about September 1991 to about 31 December
4 1992, Simo Zaric, both prior to and while serving in such various
5 positions as the Assistant Commander for Intelligence, Reconnaissance,
6 Morale and Information of the 4th Detachment, Chief of National Security
7 Service in Bosanski Samac, Deputy to the President of the War Council for
8 Security Matters in Odzak, and Assistant Commander of the 2nd Posavina
9 Brigade for Morale and Information, acting in concert with others,
10 planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the
11 planning, preparation or execution of the commission of the crimes of
12 persecutions as described in paragraphs 13 and 14 above through his
13 participation in the following acts or omissions, among others."
14 MS. REIDY: Similarly, there is the same amendment with relation
15 to 18(F); again the addition of the words "wanton and extensive" before
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So can the registry assistant please read
19 THE REGISTRAR: "The wanton and extensive destruction, plundering
20 and looting of the property of Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims and other
21 non-Serb civilians, including dwellings, businesses, personal property,
22 and livestock."
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE MUMBA: That's all, Ms. Reidy?
25 MS. REIDY: No. There remains the amendments to paragraphs 19 --
1 paragraphs 19 and 40. Those paragraphs, again, are the harmonisation of
2 the words "acting in concert with others and together." Maybe for the
3 completeness of the record, we should read them out.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: They could be.
5 MS. REIDY: So 19, 40 and those are the last two.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Paragraphs 19 and 40.
7 THE REGISTRAR: "By these actions, Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic,
8 Miroslav Tadic, and Simo Zaric, acting in concert, together and with
9 others, planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and
10 abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of."
11 40: "From approximately 1 September 1991 through 31 December
12 1993, Blagoje Simic, Milan Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and Simo Zaric, acting
13 in concert together and with various individuals on the Serb Crisis Staff
14 and other political, municipal and administrative bodies, the police
15 force, and the army committed, planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise
16 aided and abetted a campaign of persecutions for the common purpose of
17 ridding the Bosanski Samac and Odzak municipalities of all non-Serbs, and
18 in furtherance of the campaign, committed other serious violations of
19 international humanitarian law directed against the Bosnian Croat, Bosnian
20 Muslim and other non-Serb civilians residing in the Bosanski Samac and
21 Odzak municipalities, in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Any
22 reference to the words 'acting in concert together' shall be restricted to
23 Count 1."
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much. We will proceed unless there
25 are other matters. Yes, Ms. Baen?
1 MS. BAEN: Sorry, Your Honour. For purposes of the record, our
2 client, Mr. Milan Simic, does not have a copy of the indictment in front
3 of him. So I just want that to be noted in the transcript.
4 And then --
5 JUDGE MUMBA: You mean the indictment in Serbo-Croat.
6 MS. BAEN: Yes. So when they're adding these paragraphs, he
7 doesn't have this to refer to in front of him.
8 Also for purposes of the record --
9 JUDGE MUMBA: But he's listening to the proceedings.
10 MS. BAEN: I'm sure he is, Your Honour. I'm just putting it in
11 the transcript so that it's in the transcript that he doesn't have a copy
12 of the indictment in front of him in his language.
13 Then also, Rule 47(G) says if the accused doesn't understand
14 either of the official languages of the Tribunal, then a translation of
15 the indictment in his language shall also be prepared and shall be
16 included as part of each certified copy of the indictment. So that's just
17 the Rule that I'm just citing when I requested that we receive a copy of
18 the indictment in the language of the defendant.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Rule 47(G) is referring to the indictment
20 after confirmation. That is, the initial indictment.
21 MS. BAEN: I understand, Your Honour, but the indictment -- the
22 initial indictment was the first indictment and the fourth amended
23 indictment serves as the indictment the most important document in this
24 trial, and it stands to reason that whichever indictment you're operating
25 under should be translated, just as the original should be, so that the
1 defendant can understand and see the entire charging document in his case.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But the accused persons have had all these
3 paragraphs translated. They have had the application for the amendments,
4 the decision on the amendments, and they've been following the
5 proceedings. So there is nothing which is strange.
6 MS. BAEN: Your Honour, we're not trying to quarrel. The only
7 thing is I feel like we're getting in a hurry here and the all that needed
8 to happen was just to get the fourth amended indictment translated in its
9 entirety, file it, serve a copy on the defendant, like we always do. We
10 could have done that tonight and start tomorrow, clean, no problems. I
11 just thought we're getting in a rush here, and I know everybody wants to
12 move on, but I'm not quarreling with the Trial Chamber, it's just that if
13 we feel there is some sort of issue we might need to raise for appellate
14 purposes, it's our duty to do so. I'm not trying to offend the Trial
15 Chamber, I'm just trying to do my job.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But I think it must be understood that when
17 we're talking about fairness to the accused or the accused following the
18 proceedings and understanding the proceedings, there has to be a measure
19 of reasonableness, yeah? These are matters not of technicalities. These
20 are matters of substantive -- issues of justice. And if the Trial Chamber
21 is satisfied that the proceedings are being followed by the accused
22 persons, they are able to give instructions to their Defence counsels,
23 these are not new charges, these are not new matters, they've been
24 discussed, they've been followed by the accused persons, then the Trial
25 Chamber is entitled to proceed. It is all right for the Defence counsel
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 to place their objections on record. There's nothing wrong with that.
2 Yes. The Prosecution.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honour. Just before I ask this
4 witness my next question, I should point out that I inadvertently referred
5 to him by his name when I was speaking to you or making submissions to you
6 on the issue of being able to exclude evidence from your consideration,
7 sitting as professional Judges, and the reference to his name should be
8 redacted or removed from the record.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it has been redacted, actually.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm grateful.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Witness, I just wish to remind you that you are
12 still on the solemn declaration that was taken last year and we proceed as
14 WITNESS: WITNESS M [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Examined by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]
17 Q. Witness, before I move completely into the topic of -- of any
18 destruction to religious institutions, there's one issue I want to clarify
19 from the -- your earlier evidence. You mentioned that very soon after the
20 takeover, on the 16th and 17th of April, you were attacked in Cafe AS and
21 that you were forced to run in front of a car, with your hands in the air
22 or trying to get your hands in the air, crying out, "Serbia, Serbia." In
23 the car was a gentleman nicknamed Cera, whose other name is, I think,
24 Nebojsa. Was that person a member of the 4th Detachment, to your
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Thank you. Now I'd like you to turn your attention to another
3 topic that we started to examine last time you were in this Tribunal
4 giving evidence, and that was the destruction or damage to the mosque in
5 Bosanski Samac. You told the Chamber how two gentleman, Perica
6 Krstanovic, and Marinko Stefanovic came to your house, asked to borrow
7 your Hilti drill. You said no, that you didn't have one, which was
8 untrue, but you were concerned about it. You also said next morning that
9 you saw that the mosque had been damaged and that you saw wires leading
10 from the mosque into a department store and that you then went to report
11 for your labour duties, as usual, and there you saw Kemal Mehinovic, who
12 described what had he seen earlier that night. And I'd like you now to
13 tell the Chamber what Kemal Mehinovic told you he had seen Perica and
14 Marinko doing.
15 A. Perica Krstanovic, since he's an electrical engineer, he was
16 connecting some wires, and Marinko was stretching the wires. Marinko is
17 an electrician, and this is what Kemal told me as well. I didn't see
18 this. But I did see wires crossing the asphalt, two wires. One was blue,
19 one was white, and they were crossing -- they were stretched across the
20 asphalt, towards the department store.
21 Q. And just to be absolutely certain, is this the state of your
22 evidence; the wires led from the department store to the mosque or what
23 remained of the mosque?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. As far as you're aware, did the mosque have a supply of water to
1 it in the days when it was still existing; taps and so on?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Following the destruction of the mosque, did you do anything in
4 respect of the water supply?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. What?
7 A. I had to go there, find the -- and I had to turn the water off at
8 the main, find the water main and turn it off.
9 Q. Who told you to do that?
10 A. Dzemal Kapetanovic told me that in the morning, when we reported
11 for the work duty.
12 Q. Presumably there was some rubble or material left over from the
13 destruction of the mosque. Can you tell the Chamber if anyone was given
14 the task of clearing that away?
15 A. These were the local municipal workers. They were clearing it.
16 Because I worked in this company, and I knew the people who were clearing
17 it up.
18 Q. When you say "local municipal workers," are you referring to local
19 municipal workers who had been performing that job for a salary prior to
20 the events -- even prior to the events of April 16 and 17 or are you
21 talking about people who found themselves in the situation that you did,
22 doing labour?
23 A. The tractors -- the drivers were from Komunalo, the utility
24 company. These were the Serbs who remained in the company. A part of the
25 people who were assigned to work duty also went and they cleaned up this
2 Q. Thank you. Was this destruction of the mosque commented upon in
3 the local Serb radio?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Did you hear it, the commentary?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Who commented and what was said about the destruction of the
8 mosque in Bosanski Samac?
9 A. A comment was read by Mira Lujic, anchor on the local radio, and
10 she said that the Ustashas had blown up the mosque. Later, a day or two
11 afterwards, it was said that a rocket from the Croat side had hit the
13 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you now to turn your attention to the mosque
14 in Odzak. You gave evidence in December that you spent quite some time in
15 Odzak, performing these labour duties that you've described in detail.
16 Can you tell us if the mosque in Odzak was damaged at all in the time that
17 you were doing labour duties in Odzak or whether it was damaged earlier?
18 A. The day before I left for Odzak, the mosque was blown up. So I
19 wasn't there that day when the mosque was blown up.
20 Q. Can you tell the Chamber if the destruction of the mosque in Odzak
21 was commented upon in the radio, and if so, who said -- who commented upon
22 it and what was said.
23 A. The same thing, that Ustashas had done that, Ustasha -- Ustasha
25 Q. Thank you. And did you see it with your own eyes that the mosque
1 had in fact been destroyed or damaged?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Was there a Catholic church in Odzak?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When you first started -- when you first started doing your labour
6 duties in Odzak, was it standing?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Was it ever subsequently damaged or destroyed?
9 A. Around the 17th of August, it was destroyed.
10 Q. Thank you. Before I ask you to continue with this narrative, can
11 you tell the Chamber, how many Catholic churches were there in Bosanski
12 Samac and in Odzak and how many mosques were there in Bosanski Samac and
14 A. There was one mosque in Bosanski Samac. And in the municipality
15 of Bosanski Samac, there was one Catholic church in Samac, there was one
16 in Hrvatska Tisina, one in Hasici, in Korenica, in Prud. Also in the
17 Odzak municipality, it's not mentioned, but there was one in Gornja
18 Dubica, Balic. All those churches were destroyed.
19 Q. Could you tell the Chamber if the Croat villages in the
20 municipality of Bosanski Samac had only one church normally in the little
22 A. In Hasici, I think. No, there were churches. There was a
23 monastery in Kornica. That's where the nuns were. This was knocked down,
24 it was burned. There was one church in Hrvatska Tisina. The church was
25 not knocked down in Hasici, only the crosses were changed, but the church
1 itself remained standing.
2 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Di Fazio, recalling that the fourth amended
3 indictment is restricting us --
4 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm mindful of --
5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: -- to two Catholic churches, et cetera, we seem
6 to be going broader than this.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: I understand that, if Your Honours please. I was
8 merely trying to establish the number of mosques and churches in Bosanski
9 Samac and in Odzak and the fact whether other Croat villages normally had
10 only one particular church. Now, that's relevant, I think, to Tisina and
11 to Odzak and -- Odzak and Bosanski Samac. I wasn't trying to elicit --
12 that wasn't my objective in asking those questions but merely to establish
13 how many -- numbers of churches in those -- and mosques in those places.
14 It will go a long way to any complaints by the Defence to say that they --
15 and addresses any complaint by the Defence that -- of uncertainty if
16 there's only one mosque and only one Catholic church in Odzak and only one
17 mosque and only one Catholic church in Bosanski Samac. So that was the
18 objective of my question, not to elicit evidence of widespread damage and
19 go further than I have been permitted to by the Chamber.
20 But now that I see Your Honour's comment, it brings us fairly and
21 squarely to this issue of the Catholic church in -- in Odzak. I think the
22 amendments that you have permitted only go to the Catholic church in
23 Bosanski Samac and Tisina. My submission is that, notwithstanding the
24 amendments that the Chamber has permitted the Prosecution to make, it
25 still remains relevant evidence of the -- under Rule 93, for a start, and
1 also given the -- given the wording of the Chamber's decision on -- on the
3 The Chamber said, in dealing with amendments concerning
4 destruction or wilful damage of institutions dedicated to religion --
5 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: I apologise. The Chamber said, in dealing with
7 amendments concerning destruction or wilful damage of institutions to
8 religion, and I refer in particular to paragraph 4 on page 2 of the
9 decision: "The Trial Chamber arrives at this conclusion after carefully
10 considering the arguments of both parties and particularly the argument of
11 the Prosecution that the destruction or wilful damage of institutions
12 dedicated to religion are charged as part of the discriminatory attack
13 against non-Serbs, the institutions being part of their religious identity
14 under persecution as a crime against humanity."
15 Now, I'm mindful of my limitations as set out in the amendments
16 that have been permitted by the Chamber. It's under that heading that I
17 would seek to introduce this evidence of damage to the Catholic church in
18 Odzak, notwithstanding the limitations of the permitted amendments.
19 If you think that that's not to be permitted, then there can be no
20 justification for my continuing this line of questioning in respect of the
21 Catholic church in Odzak.
22 JUDGE SINGH: I think perhaps you may just want to confine
23 yourself with the amendment, the limitation contained therein. All right?
24 MR. DI FAZIO: As Your Honours please. May I just have a moment
25 to confer with my colleagues, because that may rapidly bring me to a close
1 in my examination-in-chief.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
5 Q. Can you tell us, Witness, if there was a Catholic church in the
6 village of Tisina?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. In the months following April 16th and prior to your arrest, did
9 you ever have an opportunity of going to Tisina?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you see the Catholic church there?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Was it damaged?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Do you have any idea as to who damaged it or how it was damaged or
16 when it was damaged?
17 A. I don't know the exact date, but when we went to Hasici, we passed
18 through that area because the church is right by the road, and the tower,
19 the spire had been blown up. And a building next to the church was also
20 destroyed and plundered. It was sometime in June, I think.
21 Q. Was it -- the damage or destruction of that particular church
22 reported upon in the -- by the radio, as the mosques had been reported
24 A. Very briefly. There were some comments on the radio, but the main
25 comment was that the Mujahedin from Gradacac did that, that they had come
1 and blown up the church.
2 Q. Was that on Bosanski Samac radio?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Was it the same lady who you mentioned had commented on the
5 destruction of the mosques in --
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown -- can the witness be
8 shown Exhibit P14, which are the photographs, and in particular,
9 photographs number 24 to 26. Perhaps it's P14A.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it's P14A.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Mr. Usher. Perhaps if we could start,
12 just quickly, with P14A, photograph number 24. I don't know, it might be
13 better for the defendants, I think, if it was placed on the ELMO.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The particular photograph which you want to
15 discuss with the witness should be on the ELMO.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think, Mr. Di Fazio, if the usher could make
18 sure that we don't see the list with the numbers and the names of the
19 photographs, which we did get a brief glance of a few moments ago.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Are you asking that they be
21 removed from the view of the witness?
22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes. It just appeared briefly on the screen.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: It's been attended to. Thank you, Your Honour.
24 Q. Okay. Witness, what's that a photograph of?
25 A. This is the Catholic church in Hrvatska Tisina.
1 Q. When you saw it, was it in that state?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Thank you.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: And please place photograph number 25 on the ELMO.
5 Q. Can you tell the Chamber what that photograph shows?
6 A. This is the interior of the church in Hrvatska Tisina.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: And now, Mr. Usher, could you please place
9 photograph number 26.
10 Q. Witness, there are two buildings you can see there. I don't think
11 anyone's going to object if I suggest that the one on the right is the
12 church you've just been talking about. What about the other building in
13 the background and on the left? Do you know what that is?
14 A. This is another church building where the priest by the name of
15 Zuparic lived. Later on, Lugar had his headquarters in this house where
16 the priest used to live.
17 Q. When? When did he have his headquarters there?
18 A. Maybe May, June 1992. He was there with his ...
19 Q. I don't think you finished your answer. He was there with his
21 A. With his troops, the mercenaries from Serbia.
22 Q. You mentioned a priest who used to reside there. What happened to
24 A. He was also imprisoned in the TO building in Bosanski Samac. He
25 was exchanged, and I don't know his present whereabouts.
1 Q. Just repeat again the surname of the priest.
2 A. Zuparic.
3 Q. May I have just a moment to confer with my colleagues, please?
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
5 [Prosecution counsel confer]
6 MR. DI FAZIO:
7 Q. I'm sorry. Witness, did you just try to say something?
8 A. Yes. I just remembered, actually, his name is Puskaric. I made a
10 Q. Thank you.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I have no further questions.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Cross-examination? Yes, Mr. Lukic.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't know whether I
14 should start with my cross-examination, in light of the break. Could you
15 perhaps tell me now when you intend to have a break?
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, all right. Maybe we can have a break and
17 continue our proceedings at 1615 hours. Then the cross-examination can
18 start then.
19 --- Recess taken at 3.45 p.m.
20 --- On resuming at 4.22 p.m.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. Mr. Di Fazio.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: May I just raise one very brief matter before my
23 friends cross-examine?
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: And that is the timing of witnesses. As you know,
1 it is proposed after this witness is called that the next witness be the
2 gentleman who needs to be cross-examined who gave his evidence last year,
3 Mr. Dagovic, and he's available and will be called. The question is
4 precisely when.
5 My learned friends have apparently indicated to my colleague Ms.
6 Reidy that their estimate for cross-examination of this witness is 4
7 hours. That will take us through today and into tomorrow, of course, but
8 the question is how far -- much of tomorrow, and the other witness is
9 waiting in the wings, ready for his cross-examination, and therefore has
10 to be arranged. I, with all due respect to my learned friends and I think
11 four hours is probably fairly optimistic on their part, that we will
12 probably go at least all of tomorrow if not very close to the end of
13 tomorrow. Of course, they know their case better, but even with the best
14 of intentions, estimates are usually underestimates rather than
15 overestimates. Would the Chamber be minded to grant us permission to
16 arrange him for Wednesday morning rather than tomorrow afternoon? He
17 doesn't have to be flown in, he's driving in from somewhere, and it means
18 something to him to --
19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: -- to have the day, the extra day tomorrow. What
21 I'm worried about is that we finish slightly early and we haven't got a
22 witness waiting in the wings. If that were to arise, would the Chamber
23 give us an adjournment?
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We can agree that he can drive in on Wednesday
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Wednesday morning. Thank you.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
4 Cross-examined by Mr. Lukic:
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, sir. My name is Novak Lukic. I'm an
6 attorney, and I'm the Defence counsel for Mr. Miroslav Tadic, and I will
7 be asking you some questions in my capacity.
8 Before I begin, I would just like to let you know two things.
9 First of all, it's been a month and a half since our last meeting here in
10 this courtroom. During my cross-examination, I will probably have to
11 remind you of some of the sentences you have uttered, although I assumed
12 you remember quite clearly all the things that you said during your
13 testimony a month and a half ago.
14 The second thing I would like to note is I would like to make this
15 -- the proceedings more economical in light of the duration of all the
16 testimonies. I would like to ask you if you could keep your answers as
17 short and as simple as possible. I will try to phrase my questions in
18 such a way that you can answer with yes or no or I don't know or I do not
19 remember. After all, you have been able to answer such -- in such a way
20 to some of the questions asked by my learned colleague from the
21 Prosecution, and I will try to follow his example.
22 First of all, I would like to remind you of what you have said and
23 ask you the following question in this respect: You stated that you had
24 -- that you were a member of the SDA.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. As far as I was able to understand, you were a member of this
2 party for just a few months.
3 A. Yes.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone, please.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: The microphone when asking your question, Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. You said that there were some disagreements with the persons who
8 were active members of the party. You quoted that as the reason why you
9 left the SDA.
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could I please ask you to wait for the interpretation of my
12 question and then give your answer, for the purpose of interpretation.
13 Can we agree that you were in conflict with Mr. Safet
15 A. No.
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please wait for the
17 interpretation, because we cannot hear his answer clearly.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Let us proceed slowly. I will try to use the same tactics used by
20 my colleague Mr. Pantelic. When you hear my question, count to five and
21 then answer, because in that way we will avoid the problem with the
23 I will repeat my question. Were you in conflict with Mr. Safet
24 Hadzialijagic, nicknamed Coner?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You were in conflict with him also while you were a member of the
2 League of Communists?
3 A. No.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe I can explain to the witness that if you're
5 looking at the screen, you will notice that when a sentence is completed,
6 there is a black indicator at the end of it and it will flash about three,
7 four times without moving further. That means the interpretation is
8 completed for our purposes. So just observe that and you can give your
9 answer, because the interpreters have to complete the question of counsel
10 before they can interpret your answer.
11 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Lukic, Mr. Lukic, I wonder whether you could
12 clarify from the witness. If you look at line 24, the answer to your
13 question as to being in conflict with Mr. Safet Hadzialijagic is, "No,"
14 and then you ask the same question, line -- page 34, line 7, and the
15 answer on line 9 is, "Yes."
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I noted this
17 as an error in interpretation, and that is why I repeated the question.
18 The answer given by the witness the first time was, "Yes," but the
19 transcript read, "No," and that is why I repeated the question. I think
20 that now we have cleared this whole issue up. He was in indeed conflict,
21 had a dispute with Mr. Safet Hadzialijagic.
22 Q. After doing your national service - you already described this to
23 the Prosecutor - were you in any kind of reserve force? And if yes,
24 where, in which arm of the service?
25 A. For a while I was in the reserve force of the police. As for the
1 arm, I don't know. Just the reserve police.
2 Q. Were you in the reserve force of the police until the outbreak of
3 the conflict or did you change your assignment?
4 A. I changed it.
5 Q. Did you have military exercises?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Were you issued with any kind of weapon as a member of the
9 A. No.
10 Q. So we can agree that you only knew where your order of war
11 timetable was, but you weren't assigned to any kind of unit?
12 A. We had lectures often. This is what it really was all about
13 mostly, at the old hotel in Samac.
14 Q. But in the army you were trained how to handle weapons?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You also described to us the day when weapons were issued in the
17 TO building. So we -- I would like to clarify some facts regarding this
19 First of all, I'm interested in whether you found out from
20 somebody that these weapons were being issued or distributed at the TO or
21 you saw people on the street who were carrying weapons and then you went
22 to the TO. Could you please just clarify this?
23 A. I saw a couple of people carrying weapons.
24 Q. Did you ask them where they got the weapons from, why they were
25 carrying these weapons?
1 A. I did. I think I asked a person. His last names is Coralic. His
2 nickname is Dubcek or Ciko. And He told me that the TO, the Territorial
3 Defence in Samac, was distributing weapons.
4 Q. At that time did you know that a new Territorial Defence was
5 formed in Samac?
6 A. I found out on that day.
7 Q. Did you find out that day that the chief of the TO headquarters
8 was Marko Bozanic and that the commander was Alija Fitozovic?
9 A. I heard about Alija before. I knew Marko personally, and I
10 happened to see him there at the HQ that day.
11 Q. Did you talk to him?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Just one more clarification, if you would. Could you precisely
14 tell us whether you saw Milos Bogdanovic in the courtyard of the TO
15 building on that occasion?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You stated that you saw that only Muslims and Croats were issued
18 with weapons. This is what you said. Is that right?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Could anybody receive a rifle who happened to come to the TO
21 building courtyard at that time and ask for a weapon?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Who decided about who could be issued with a weapon and who could
25 A. I don't know who made that decision.
1 Q. Was there a list of people who were supposed to be issued with
3 A. I didn't see that.
4 Q. And you were offered a rifle?
5 A. No.
6 Q. I would like to remind you of your statement which you gave in the
7 month of December. You stated literally that it seemed to you that this
8 was a kind of funny business going on and this is why you decided to
9 leave, and you were not on the list to receive a weapon.
10 A. I've stated a little while ago that I did not see this list.
11 Q. Did you ask for a weapon at all?
12 A. I did not, and I'm sure I wouldn't have received one either.
13 MR. LUKIC: Just bear with me for a moment.
14 [Defence counsel confer]
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Could you clarify for me, please, what you meant when you said
17 that it seemed to you that there was some funny business going on there.
18 A. I was watching as they were distributing the weapons at the HQ.
19 The door was open. When I turned to the other side, towards the building
20 of the police station, I could see that Serb police officers were looking
21 out of the windows from that building.
22 Q. According to you, could those police officers clearly see who was
23 bringing out rifles from the courtyard?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. You said that that evening, your brother [redacted] came to ask you for
1 a rifle, even though you'd never had one before.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you ask him why he was asking you for a rifle?
4 A. I did ask him, and he told me, "If you do have one, give it to
5 me." And he told me also to stay in the house, not to go out and not to
6 open the door. Since it was possible to buy an illegal weapon at that
7 time, perhaps he thought that I had bought a rifle somewhere, and this is
8 probably why he came.
9 Q. I would like to move to another topic now. You described your
10 forced labour and your trench digging. You stated that you were summoned
11 for work duty in the second half of May, that you received the summons
12 then on the 16th or the 17th of May.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Did I hear you properly, that you stated that already the next day
15 you had gone out to dig trenches in Zasavica?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. I would now like you to clarify some things about the area we're
18 talking about. You also indicated some of these places on the map. The
19 line of separation at that time was between -- the River Bosna at that
20 time was the line of separation between the HVO and the units of the VRS.
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In relation to this line of separation, did something change after
23 Odzak was taken over by the VRS in July of 1992?
24 A. Yes.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like the usher to place the
1 map P9 on the ELMO so that we could clarify some points regarding the
2 location of Zasavica.
3 Q. Could you point out for us the village of Zasavica on this map,
4 please. Once again, please.
5 A. Just one moment.
6 Q. Would it be easier to look on the map itself rather than on the
8 A. [Indicates]
9 Q. Thank you. You also pointed out the line of trenches that you had
10 made during the months of May and June, i.e., in the month of May when the
11 work duty began. Could you please show that to us once more.
12 A. [Indicates]
13 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter is not able to hear the
15 JUDGE MUMBA: The interpreters say they can't hear what the
16 witness is saying. I wonder if he can be assisted.
17 A. From the village of Zasavica up to the Bosna River, the line went.
18 This is where Prudine are, then it went towards Pisari, even though
19 they're not indicated here.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Thank you. Thank you, you've already marked that. When did the
22 Muslims swim across the Sava River in large numbers? When was this? In
23 which month?
24 A. Around the 15th of July. Mid-July, thereabouts.
25 Q. And after that, as you stated, their families were detained in the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 village of Zasavica as a consequence of that act.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. After the fall of Odzak, after Odzak was taken over by the Serb
4 authorities, that's when it happened?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Can we agree that at the time when the families of these people
7 were taken to Zasavica, the River Bosna was not the separation line
8 between the warring parties?
9 A. I said that I was digging trenches in the month of May, and I
10 agree that at that time when there was this major escape attempt, the
11 River Bosna was not the separation between the sides.
12 Q. Can we agree that, at that time, the line of the front ran along
13 the River Sava?
14 A. That's where it was.
15 Q. Could you tell us how far, approximately, is Zasavica from the
16 River Sava?
17 A. Do you mean if we go along the River Bosna or if we go along the
19 Q. Well, what is the shortest distance between Zasavica and the River
20 Sava, according to you?
21 A. It's perhaps about eight kilometres.
22 Q. And the town Samac is on the bank of the River Sava?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you know that the village -- that the village of Zasavica was
25 ever shelled from the direction of the Sava River?
1 A. No.
2 Q. As opposed to Samac, which was frequently shelled?
3 A. Yes.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We won't need map P9 any more, thank
6 you. Actually, I would just like it to stay on the ELMO for just one more
8 Q. On the map, you can see the town of Samac. You can see it very
9 well. But perhaps you could indicate where the old-age pensioners' hall
10 was where you had to report for work duty. If you can indicate where it
11 was, approximately. Was it in the town itself? Was it in the centre?
12 A. It was in the town itself.
13 Q. This building had a ground floor and a first floor?
14 A. It had apartments upstairs.
15 Q. And the offices for the work duty were in the basement, on the
16 ground floor; is that right?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And this is where people reported for their work duty assignments?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You stated that you frequently went upstairs where your brother
21 Ismet worked.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. We can agree, can we not, that on the first floor, the upstairs of
24 the building, there were the premises of the local Red Cross?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And the Red Cross flag was flying on that building, if you
3 A. No, I don't.
4 Q. What do you mean; "No, it was not there," or, "No, I don't
6 A. I don't remember. I remember there was the employment office
7 there. I do not recall any flag.
8 Q. Do you know who was in charge of the Red Cross?
9 A. I think it was Sveto Vasovic, the teacher.
10 Q. Does the name Milorad Mihajlovic ring any bells?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did he work for the Red Cross?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Was he in fact the manager for the Red Cross in Samac? Do you
16 A. I don't know.
17 Q. Do you know the name of Anka Jovanovic?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Do you know the name Zeljko Volasevic?
20 A. Yes, but I think that Zeljko did not work for the Red Cross.
21 Q. What about Anka?
22 A. Anka did.
23 Q. The people who wanted to being exchanged, did they go to the
24 premises of the Red Cross to sign up for it?
25 A. I know they went to the premises where my brother and Mr. Miroslav
1 Tadic were, but we're talking about a different premises. That's not the
2 Red Cross building. That was, in fact, a separate room.
3 Q. We have to agree. In addition to the Red Cross, was there also
4 the civilian protection there?
5 A. That was the local commune council where Zeljko Volasevic used to
7 Q. What about the civilian protection headquarters? If you don't
8 know, just say -- just say so.
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. Do you know what the civilian protection is?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Do you know that Miroslav Tadic was the commander of the civilian
13 protection headquarters or staff?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Do you know that if somebody wanted to be exchanged, that the
16 other side had to give its approval; the other side, the receiving side?
17 A. I would not agree with that statement.
18 Q. I merely asked about your knowledge of this fact, whether it was
19 necessary to receive approval from the receiving side for any exchange.
20 A. No. I do not want to answer that question because the question
21 itself is not correct. They took people to be exchanged, those who wanted
22 to be exchanged.
23 Q. Do you know that if somebody wanted to be exchanged and go to the
24 Republic of Croatia, that they needed a letter of guarantee from a person
25 inviting this person?
1 A. That is not correct. Who would give you such a letter of
2 guarantee that they were willing to receive you? That's also not correct.
3 Q. I didn't ask you to assess my question but to give me an answer.
4 Do you know of that?
5 A. This is the first time I hear of such a thing.
6 Q. Your brother worked in the premises where Miroslav Tadic was the
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Was this his work duty assignment?
10 A. He was in a military uniform. I would say that this was his work
11 duty assignment. He was paid as a soldier of the Republika Srpska army,
12 and whether this was in fact work duty, I don't know.
13 Q. I would now like to ask you some questions that pertain to the
14 proceedings conducted against you. My learned colleague from the
15 Prosecution wanted to ask you some questions regarding this event, but we
16 did not -- we were not able to get any answers. I just want to ask you,
17 is your eyesight better now than it was in December?
18 A. Yes, it is.
19 Q. I may want to ask you to read some things. In the course of the
20 examination-in-chief, you said you were arrested in September [Realtime
21 transcript read in error "December"] 1992.
22 A. Yes.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please. Microphone.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Microphone.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. You said that you were questioned by Inspector Milos Savic after
2 perhaps some ten days.
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I'm little bit concerned,
5 and I don't want to interrupt unduly, but I'm a bit concerned about what
6 was put to the witness about the date. It says December 1992. I don't
7 have it at my fingertips, but my memory tells me that the arrest was
8 earlier than what this witness said, and I think my colleague Mr. Weiner
9 agrees with me. I wonder if Mr. Lukic can specify the page or if he has
10 direct knowledge of the --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: About the date of arrest for the witness.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. On the translation here, it says December.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I can see that on the transcript.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: My memory tells me that his evidence was that he
15 was arrested much earlier.
16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The question that I asked was
17 September, and the witness heard me and answered and confirmed it. So
18 we're talking about September 1992.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Fine. It's been clarified. It's just a mistake in
21 JUDGE MUMBA: We have a problem because this is the second time
22 the interpretation seems not to be correct. So the month is September.
23 Let the witness confirm that if the witness can confirm that.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In December I was taken from Samac
25 to Batkovici and that is why the month of December is mentioned at all,
1 but I was arrested in September 1992.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I even quoted the exact reference;
4 page 5223 of the examination-in-chief.
5 Q. You also stated that you couldn't remember whether you signed any
6 written statements.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. You also stated that you were questioned only about the fact
9 whether you belonged to the scout unit, Alija's scouts, as you explained
10 to us.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And Savic did not ask any other questions?
13 A. No, no other questions. That was the only thing.
14 Q. You also answered to my colleague from the Prosecution that there
15 was no mention of Stevo Arandjic.
16 A. No. Stevo Arandjic was not mentioned at all on that occasion.
17 Q. And about the incident involving Stevo Arandjic, nothing was said
18 about that either?
19 A. No, nothing was said about that either.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Could we now go into private session
21 or closed session, because I would now like to introduce a document where
22 the witness's name is mentioned, and I would like to have a part of this
23 document read out.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we go into private session.
25 [Private session]
13 Pages 5323 to 5343 – redacted – private session.
3 [Open session]
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. You said that you were exchanged in June 1994.
6 A. Yes.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, there's just one particular
8 matter that I need -- I think should be clarified for the benefit of the
9 Chamber. It's an earlier question.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Question: "I assume that the money was taken away
12 from all persons who were imprisoned at Batkovic," and the -- what the
13 question -- and the answer was: "Yes." What that leaves unanswered is
14 whether the money was taken at Batkovic or at some other place or only
15 taken from the people who went to Batkovic. So perhaps that could be
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I'm sure counsel can deal with that.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Let's just clarify this issue. When you were searched, as you
20 entered Batkovic, by the officials there, any money that was found was
21 seized on the spot?
22 A. Yes.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think that now it has been
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. You also said that at that time in June 1994, 18 persons were
3 exchanged, persons who were with you in Batkovic.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Were those your fellow citizens from Samac?
6 A. There were six of us from Samac.
7 Q. Do you remember any of the names, or perhaps all of the names?
8 A. Husein Arapovic, Zlatko Dubric, Esad Dzakic, and Mirsad Srna, I
10 Q. You said that you found out the day before the exchange that you
11 were going to be exchanged. Do you know who organised the exchange? Were
12 you taken to the exchange by the army of the Republika Srpska? Were they
13 uniformed persons?
14 A. Yes, they were people in uniform.
15 Q. Were there uniformed persons from the B and H army during the
16 exchange? Were they present also?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you have the opportunity to see the people who were being
19 exchanged for you? Did you see people coming from the opposite side at
20 the place where the exchange took place?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. You also stated that you gave a statement afterwards. Do you
23 remember to whom you gave that first statement?
24 A. To the police in Tuzla.
25 Q. Were representatives of the International Red Cross present during
1 that -- on that occasion, or representatives of the OSCE?
2 A. No.
3 Q. But they were uniformed persons from one and from the other side
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Miroslav Tadic was not present at that exchange?
7 A. No.
8 Q. At the time when you were exchanged, as far as I was able to
9 figure out, you had served about two years of that sentence by the
10 military court. Is that true?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you were still serving that sentence when you went to be
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. A 12-year sentence in prison, according to the judgement of the
16 military court in Bijeljina.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. I would like to remind you that, in response to a question by the
19 Prosecutor about your exchange, which you gave in December of last year on
20 page 5252, when the Prosecutor asked whether there were any soldiers or
21 military persons present at that exchange, you had responded, "No."
22 A. There was a military escort on both sides, because we were treated
23 as members of the army.
24 Q. Yes. This is what I'm interested in. Were you treated as war --
25 prisoners of war by the persons who took you for the exchange?
1 A. Yes. According to the documents, that is how we were treated.
2 Civilians were given -- were exchanged for regular army members in these
4 Q. And the -- and the judgement by the -- did you have this sentence,
5 the judgement by the military court which sentenced you?
6 A. We were -- the 37 from us from Samac, we were sentenced. So we
7 were exchanged for the members of the army who had been captured on the
9 Q. So if I concluded rightly, during the exchange, the people who
10 were exchanged from the other side were military persons, persons from the
11 army of Republika Srpska.
12 A. Yes.
13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Lukic, I have a question for yourself. If
14 this witnesses and others like him in a similar situation were classified
15 as prisoners of war, on what basis were they being prosecuted? They would
16 have been subjected to the protections of international humanitarian law,
17 the Geneva Conventions 1949. So these prosecutions would hardly have been
18 legal and there would also be questions as to the -- obviously the
19 beatings would again violate the legal obligations both under conventional
20 international law and customary international law and arguably also jus
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I understood your question very well,
23 Judge Williams, but I am defending Miroslav Tadic here, who was not a
24 party to the decision of the military court. He did not participate in
25 the exchange of this witness. So I'm trying, through the procedure which
1 was conducted - and this Court will decide about the legality of that
2 procedure - I am trying -- I would like to show through that procedure
3 what the -- what the activities or the procedure of Miroslav Tadic was in
4 the committee for the exchange, because earlier with previous witnesses, I
5 provided documents about who it is who approves military exchanges, if you
6 remember. And I provided this document as the main headquarters of
7 Republika Srpska, the corps command, if we're talking about exchange.
8 So in this sense, the situation relating to the legality or the
9 justice of his procedure, a military trial is in somebody else's
10 jurisdiction. I'm asking these questions in order to clarify the place
11 and the role of my defendant in the procedure of the exchange.
12 JUDGE SINGH: But I think your question was, and which I also
13 don't quite understand, the question you put to him was: "You were
14 treated as war prisoners by the persons who took you for the exchange."
15 What does that mean? What persons? What persons are you talking
16 about who took him for the exchange? Who are these persons, the
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, there was a civilian and
19 a military committee for exchange as part of the authorities of Republika
20 Srpska. Military prisoners of war who were treated as such by the
21 authorities of Republika Srpska, based on some legal documents, were
22 exchanged through military commissions; and civilians who were treated by
23 those commissions as civilians were exchanged through civilian committees.
24 During the year 1993, these committees became mixed, and they always
25 worked jointly. And we will present evidence of this during the trial.
1 But my questions was, the people who took him for an exchange, were they
2 uniformed persons? This is what I wanted to find out from the witness.
3 These were people who took him to be exchanged.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, for Judge Singh.
5 JUDGE SINGH: Do you know who took him to be exchanged to the
6 authorities? If you know, you should put that to him. I assume you know
7 by now.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I must disappoint you. I only know
9 about exchanges in which my client participated, and I can assume who it
10 was who took him to the -- to be exchanged. But the exchanges in which my
11 client Tadic participated, I know about those specifically. But I assume
12 it was somebody from the military structure from the camp, or he was
13 simply taken there by people from the military command. Perhaps we can
14 clarify this if the witness knows this in regard to his exchange.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when the list was read
16 by a civilian, the list was read to us by a civilian person, his name is
17 Vojkan Djurkovic. He read a list to us in the camp. He was the president
18 of the committee in Bijeljina.
19 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, it is 6.00. I have one
20 more topic besides the topic which was postponed. So perhaps --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think we can adjourn and continue tomorrow
22 afternoon at 1415.
23 I see Mr. Zecevic.
24 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Your Honours. I was informed
25 during the break from my client that he doesn't feel very well at all, and
1 he is willing to rest tomorrow, and I just wanted to inform the Trial
2 Chamber that he's waiving his right of appearance for tomorrow.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes. Yes.
4 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: So he can rest in the Detention Unit.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: We will rise.
8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 6.00 p.m.,
9 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 15th day of
10 January, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.