1 Monday 18 February 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The accused Milan Simic not present]
5 [The witness entered court]
6 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon, 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. I notice that Mr. Dagovic is still in the
12 witness box, and so we will continue with cross-examination.
13 Mr. Pantelic.
14 WITNESS: ESAD DAGOVIC [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 MR. PANTELIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours.
17 Cross-examined by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]
18 Q. [Interpretation] Good day. We would agree about some indisputable
19 facts. The first fact is as follows: During your detention at the Samac
20 MUP, you experienced mistreatment and abuse; is this true or not?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Fact number two: The chief of police, Stiv Todorovic, and his
23 police officers, practically were responsible during your captivity for
24 everything that was going on; yes or no?
25 A. No.
1 MR. WEINER: I'd object.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
4 MR. WEINER: The question is for everything that's going. That's
5 an improper question, calling for conclusion about all sorts of things.
6 Some of it would be outside the scope of this witness, and I'd object.
7 It's an improper question.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?
9 MR. PANTELIC: I will narrow the issue, of course, Your Honours.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Fact number three: Members of paramilitary units
11 which were at the Samac MUP carried out certain abuse; yes or no?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Fact number four: Members of the Serbian police under the command
14 of Stiv Todorovic also abused you; is this right or not?
15 A. Amongst others, yes, they did.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I would like to tender into evidence
17 one sketch which was made by this witness. The ERN number is 00182901.
18 It is actually -- depict and description of the MUP area where he was
20 JUDGE MUMBA: When was it made?
21 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry?
22 JUDGE MUMBA: When was it made?
23 MR. PANTELIC: Well, that's another problem that I want to bring
24 to the attention of this Trial Chamber. In fact, during the preparation
25 of cross-examination of this witness, I noticed that in his statement made
1 on 1994, he speaks about this map and another sketch. And the -- after
2 the verification in checking what was discovered from the OTP to the
3 Defence, I noticed that these two particular documents were not -- were
4 not disclosed, and of course, I made some contacts with my learned
5 friends, and they were so kind to provide us virtually by the end of last
6 week. So it was made -- I assume it was made in 1994. But the ERN
7 numbers are not correspond with the ERN numbers on his previous statement
8 on 1994. So maybe my colleague can clarify that. In the meantime, I
9 would like to tender this into evidence. Thank you.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.
11 MR. WEINER: I just want to clarify one thing, Your Honour. We
12 have a signed receipt from this Defence counsel for that statement and the
13 diagrams and it's dated June 9th, 1999. We've had -- several times, the
14 Prosecution has been blamed for not providing the documents. We have a
15 signed receipt. If you want, I can turn it in to the Court.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic --
17 MR. WEINER: Signed by Mr. Lukicic on his behalf. And we have it
18 signed by all the attorneys. So if there's a problem that one attorney
19 didn't turn them over, that's their type of problem. It shouldn't be
20 blamed on the Prosecution. We've been blamed on several occasions when we
21 have signed receipts for these documents.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, if I may, I would very much be
24 grateful if I can take a look -- short look on this receipt, because
25 according to my list, I am speaking on behalf of my client, I wasn't able
1 to locate this particular ERN numbers. So if I just have a short look on
2 this receipt, I would be grateful.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe the usher can assist first with counsel.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Because I have all these documents on the CD-ROM,
5 and I have a certain programme when I type, you know, particular ERN
6 number and it doesn't appear. So --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the usher please show Mr. Pantelic and the
9 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, not only is the ERN listed, too, from
10 the documents on the receipt --
11 MR. PANTELIC: Well, I can confirm that these ERN numbers are on
12 this list, but still after the checking of the material discovery of my
13 present client, which is Mr. Blagoje Simic, I don't have these particular
14 ERN numbers in my list. So I kindly ask that this approach from the
15 Prosecutor would be clarified, because as I said, my previous documents
16 were transmitted to the -- to the counsel who is now in charge for this
17 particular crime, Mr. Tadic. But as I said, I don't have on my list of
18 these ERN numbers these particular sketches, so I am not obliged, Your
19 Honours, to have all documents during this case. Contrary, I am obliged
20 when I finish with my client to transmit all relevant documents to the
21 attorney in question. So the OTP is not in possession of the receipt that
22 I signed for my client, Mr. Blagoje Simic, that they gave me these
23 particular sketches. So up to now I don't see -- I don't see this
25 But we can move on.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think so, that we have heard enough
2 explanation, and I'm sure that the Prosecution are satisfied that they did
3 what they could at the time. Perhaps as time goes on, they will make sure
4 that since Mr. Blagoje Simic came on the list much later --
5 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: So that all the other relevant documents are handed
8 MR. PANTELIC: He came in March 2001, so they were obliged to
9 discover all these materials.
10 Anyhow --
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honour please, that raises a
12 considerable problem. I mean, the Prosecution has handed over these
13 documents that are general documents in the case and of a general
14 application to all of these defendants, and this is a clear, clear
15 example, a statement of one witness that applies in many respects to
16 various issues in the case.
17 If the situation is that Mr. Pantelic has lost or given away all
18 the documents that he once received from the Prosecution, then this
19 situation will arise again and again, won't it? So I think that we ought
20 to know, and firmly know, from Mr. Pantelic if indeed he is now missing a
21 large swathe of documents that he once received because he gave them to
22 another counsel. It seems to me that the problem could be solved and not
23 laid at the Prosecution's door by Mr. Pantelic simply saying to counsel,
24 "Can I have a copy of the documents I gave you?" That would, I think,
25 take care of the problem, would it not? If that's not suitable to Mr.
1 Pantelic, then I think a clear indication from him that he is missing
2 a large section of documents be made to us, and that could be done
3 privately, and we will attend to his request. But I wouldn't like this
4 issue to arise again, because of course it would put Mr. Pantelic at a
5 disadvantage if he doesn't have the documents and it puts us at a
6 disadvantage, too. If Your Honours, please.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Thank you for the explanation, Mr. Di Fazio.
8 I think that is sufficient. I think both parties will make sure that--
9 MR. PANTELIC: But Your Honour, just to end this, I need to give
10 you few informations. The fact is here as follows: I gave all documents
11 and statement to my colleague, Mr. Lukic. So it is not any more in my
12 possession any page, any document. That is a normal way, how we act. And
13 when I started with Mr. Blagoje Simic, the Prosecutor were obliged to
14 provide me in discovery process with all relevant documents related to my
15 client, Mr. Blagoje Simic. So I mean, it's a little bit of
16 misunderstanding on the part of Prosecution about how these documents were
17 transmitted. So they are in possession of my colleague, Mr. Lukic, and I
18 am not entitled to go into his office and to check up what's going on in
19 his own papers.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic -- let me ask Mr. Lukic, please.
21 I'm sure you would have no objection to giving copies of all the
22 documents that Mr. Pantelic handed over to you to him. Not that you
23 have an obligation to do so, but as professional etiquette.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Absolutely, Your Honour. I will do
25 everything to prevent any kind of wrong steps in procedure. But yes,
1 Mr. Pantelic did hand over to me the records and the whole documentation,
2 and of course, I will make sure that I will hand it back to him. But
3 also, I will make available all the material to him handed over to me by
4 the Prosecution. So hopefully that -- the Trial Chamber will permit me to
5 allow access to Mr. Pantelic again to all the documents that he has
6 provided to me and that he can photocopy the documents that he needs.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much.
8 Can we proceed, please.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honours.
10 Mr. Usher, could you please give this map to the witness.
11 Sorry, it is on the ELMO. Could I have the ID number or maybe if
12 there is no objection or maybe --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: It's a sketch, not a map.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, it's a sketch. Sorry. That's my mistake.
15 Sketch number -- ERN number 001829 --
16 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please slow down for the
17 benefit of the interpreters? Thank you.
18 MR. PANTELIC: I would like to tender it into evidence.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the -- first of all, the interpreters
20 are saying can you slow down, Mr. Pantelic. They are having problems
21 catching up with you.
22 The Prosecution, I'm sure, have got sight of this diagram -- or
23 sketch, rather, alleged to have been drawn by the witness now in the
24 witness box. Is there any objection to having it produced into evidence?
25 MR. WEINER: No objection.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have an exhibit number, please.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It is Exhibit D26/1.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Mr. Usher, I don't think we need your
4 assistance. You can sit, please.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Would you be so kind and tell us whether the
6 markings "SL Samac" stands for Slavonski Samac.
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. I assume that you sketched this.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Slavonski Samac is on the territory of the Republic of Croatia.
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. This next marking "trees" means that this is the bank towards
13 Croatia and that it's forested; is that true?
14 A. Well, I wouldn't call it a forest, but yes, there were trees.
15 Q. You will agree with me that there were members of Croatian army
16 there, wouldn't you?
17 A. Well, I don't know. I wasn't there on the other side.
18 Q. I didn't ask you that. Do you have knowledge that there was
19 Croatian army there?
20 A. No. I don't know.
21 Q. Would you please take a red marker and on the part of the diagram
22 where it says "SL Samac," could you please write "CRO," which is an
23 abbreviation for "Croatia." Then I would ask you to take the red marker
24 and to mark the garage that you sketched where your relative was killed by
25 a shell.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. So that's garage number 4, and you marked it with a red cross.
3 You marked garage number 4 with a red cross, the place where your cousin
4 was killed by a shell?
5 A. Yes.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: I think it was his uncle.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, his uncle. Yes.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the interpreter -- the interpretation was
10 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Could you please mark, since in your previous testimony you
12 explained what happened at the time of this shelling, could you please
13 indicate with an arrow the direction from which the shell came.
14 A. [Marks]
15 Q. Thank you.
16 MR. PANTELIC: For the record, the witness just made an arrow,
17 which was the direction of the alleged direction of the shelling.
18 Mr. Usher, you can take your seat. Thank you.
19 Q. [Interpretation] You provided a statement to the Prosecutor's
20 office in 1994; is that true?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In my records, it's the 6th and the 7th of September, 1994.
23 A. Well, I don't remember the exact date.
24 MR. PANTELIC: With your permission, Your Honour, I have a copy on
25 B/C/S version of his statement. So maybe we can place it in front of him,
1 then so we can easily go through certain portions of this statement. It
2 is not my intention to tender it into evidence. It's just a facilitating
3 of communication with the witness, Your Honours.
4 Q. [Interpretation] So in your opinion, the shell was fired by the
5 Serb forces on the Serb town of Samac; is that what you're claiming?
6 A. Yes. I am convinced of that.
7 Q. But this conviction of yours, do you have any proof of that? Did
8 you discuss this with anybody?
9 A. Since I was at the scene of the crime, I could see certain things
10 for myself. And when I was there after I was released from the camp, I --
11 after the exchange when I returned to Samac, I had the opportunity to get
12 a better look and even to make a record with a camera of where I was
13 standing, so I filmed or I took pictures of everything. So I assume that
14 my thoughts about it are correct.
15 Q. As far as I understood from your previous testimony, while you
16 were questioned by one of my colleagues, you said that one shell fell
17 only. Is that true?
18 A. Into the MUP courtyard, yes.
19 Q. Could you please clarify. Does that mean that there were other
21 A. Yes. And this is what I said on the previous occasion, if you had
22 read that carefully.
23 Q. So that day when the shelling took place, one of the shells fell
24 on the SUP, and the other shells fell on other places on that day.
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. You heard about the incident at Markale in Sarajevo?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. What do you know about that incident? Who fired at whom?
4 A. I don't know. I wasn't there.
5 MR. WEINER: Just --
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
7 MR. WEINER: This is a Bosanski Samac case. As to the firing, as
8 to who fired in Sarajevo at certain times, that's for the Galic trial.
9 That's not a matter for the Bosanski Samac trial.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, my idea is to establish certain, I
12 would say, illogical position of this witness with regard to certain
13 situation. And I'm simply asking about the general knowledge. I wasn't
14 asking, if you will notice, was he work there in Sarajevo. I simply ask
15 whether he knows or not about this event. He said yes. So I have line of
16 questioning where this might be of very much importance.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But Mr. Pantelic, you are a lawyer, and you
18 know very well that when a witness comes to give evidence, there are
19 limitations as to what he can be asked about. This is a fact witness.
20 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.
21 Q. [Interpretation] So on the 28th of October, 1992, when this
22 shelling was carried out, you were in the MUP courtyard; is that true?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you allow for the possibility that the shell came from Croat
1 A. I'm convinced that it did not.
2 Q. But you are not sure.
3 A. I am sure, 100 per cent. I can even argument that, if necessary.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: And Mr. Pantelic, the other question -- the other
5 point I've observed is that we've had a lot of questioning about this
6 particular shell which killed his uncle.
7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: With other counsel.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: And I'm sure we've had all the explanations the
11 witness has to give and why he thinks it didn't come from Croatia. We've
12 been through that already. I don't think any repetition will do us any
13 good. It's a waste of Court time.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. It's very necessary, because now I am going
15 to tender into evidence another sketch of this witness. The ERN number is
16 00182899. It's a sketch -- well, I would say a sort of map of town of
17 Samac and neighbouring areas. This sketch was also made by this witness.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Any objection from the Prosecution?
19 MR. WEINER: No objection, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number, please.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's Exhibit D27/1.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: If I may ask before Mr. Pantelic cross-examines, if
23 I may ask the Prosecutor. Both D26/1 and D27/1 are sketches made by this
24 witness. Largely -- the writing is in Serbo-Croat; isn't it?
25 MR. WEINER: Yes, it is, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Maybe the Court can ask the registry
2 assistant to ask the Translation Unit to give us the English equivalent of
3 the words by having photocopies.
4 MR. WEINER: On 27.1, Your Honour, it's just the names of the
5 towns. So it's nothing that would really need to be translated.
6 On 26/1, there are words like "drvece" and other words.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. Then it's only 26/1 which requires an English
8 equivalent which the Translation Unit will deal with, on the request of
9 the Court, of course.
10 Yes, Mr. Pantelic. You can proceed with your cross-examination.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
12 Q. [Interpretation] As far as I understand, you drew this map. Is
13 that true?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. In 1994, when you gave the statement; is that when it was?
16 A. I don't know, but -- I don't know the exact date, but I know that
17 I did draw such a map. I understand this map.
18 MR. PANTELIC: Just could we have a zoom, please, on this map
19 from -- with the assistance of the technical booth, to have, actually, all
20 map on our screen, because there are some neighbouring areas which might
21 be of importance. Could we have more zoom, to have all these page on the
23 No, no. I would prefer to have -- okay. It doesn't matter.
24 Q. [Interpretation] As far as I understand this map -- [In English] I
25 would need your assistance.
1 [Interpretation] As far as I understand this map, it's a sketch
2 of Samac, the town of Samac, and the surrounding villages and the area?
3 A. Yes. But it's not a precise map. Compared to the map you used
4 last time, that map was more precise and it was made by experts. This is
5 just a hand-drawn map.
6 Q. Yes, yes. This is not so important.
7 A. Well, for me, it is. Because since Domaljevac, it's not along the
8 river Sava. It's on the Sava. So we moved everything out a little bit
9 towards Obudovac. But everything should actually be a little closer to
10 the river. Just like these Croatian villages that you can see here.
11 Grebnice, Bazik, and so on.
12 THE INTERPRETER: Mr. Pantelic, could you please slow down.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Can you please wait. Each one of you do pause for
14 the interpreters, otherwise, the record won't make sense.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
16 Q. [Interpretation] Would you be so kind and show us with the pointer
17 in this drawing of yours where the town of Samac is.
18 A. Well, this would be the town of Samac.
19 Q. Thank you. Can you now, please, indicate for us where the place
20 called Prud is.
21 A. Right here.
22 Q. Were there members of HVO in Prud?
23 A. Unfortunately, I wasn't present, so I don't know.
24 Q. Do you know whether there were any members there?
25 A. I don't know. If there were that many soldiers everywhere around,
1 then they probably would have been able to defend themselves and us.
2 Q. Can you please slow down, please.
3 A. No problem.
4 Q. Were there members of the HVO in Bazic and Domaljevac.
5 A. Could you please indicate Bazic and Domaljevac for us?
6 A. Well, here it is.
7 Q. Were there members of the HVO there?
8 A. I heard they were there. And when they were exchanged, I saw
9 in Orasje groups that moved around and who told me that they had been
10 present there.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.
12 MR. WEINER: Yes. Your Honour, could there be any time
13 limitation? Are we talking prior to the takeover, at the time of the
14 takeover, while he was incarcerated? At what point?
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Because I thought the answer included at the
16 time he was released.
17 So yes, Mr. Pantelic, do particularise the time period to which
18 your questions pertain.
19 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. The first question was as follows: After April 1992, after 17th
21 of April, 1992, do you know whether in this area that you had just
22 indicated to us, Grebnice, Bazik, Domaljevac, there were any members of
23 the HVO?
24 A. I don't know.
25 Q. After you were exchanged, do you know whether in the region of
1 Domaljevac, Bazic, and Grebnice, there were members of the HVO?
2 A. Yes, I've heard about that.
3 Q. Can you please take a red marker and indicate for us the HVO in
4 this area where you marked Domaljevac, Bazik, Grbnica?
5 A. I wouldn't agree with you. I would move this closer to the Sava
6 river a bit.
7 MR. WEINER: I object.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
9 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, all he has is he's heard that there were
10 troops here. Now they're going to have him mark in that area as if he had
11 personally seen the troops there? That's not --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Within the competence of the witness.
13 MR. WEINER: Yes. If he has seen them, I have no objection. But
14 if it's just he's heard that there were troops there and at some point,
15 that it's not helpful, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
17 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Did you see members of the HVO in this area after you were
20 A. No. I was in Orasje.
21 Q. Do you know whether members of the HVO were present in the area of
22 Bosanski Brod?
23 A. I know even less about that, because it's quite far away.
24 Q. Do you have any information on the presence of the HVO members in
25 the area of Modrica?
1 A. No. I know even less about that, because I didn't visit that
3 Q. Do you know anything about the presence of the members of the
4 Muslim army in the Gradacac area?
5 A. I heard about that.
6 Q. Do you have any information concerning the fact that in this area
7 that you indicated here between Samac, Gradacac, and Bazik, there was
8 basically the front line in that area, wasn't there?
9 A. Yes. I heard about that.
10 Q. You were exchanged on what day, please?
11 A. I was exchanged on the 5th of November, 1992.
12 Q. You were exchanged where?
13 A. Dragalic.
14 Q. And then after that, you went where?
15 A. To Orasje.
16 Q. Did you give any statements to the police in Orasje at that time?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did you give any statements later on to the police?
19 A. As far as I know, I did not. I spent only a short time there.
20 Q. How long did you stay in that area?
21 A. I couldn't tell you, but it was a brief period of time.
22 Q. Well, how brief?
23 A. Very brief. I can't tell you exactly. Five, ten days. Perhaps
24 15 days. Perhaps only two days. This means that upon arriving there,
25 shortly thereafter I went to Croatia to have a medical examination. My
1 medical condition was very poor at the time.
2 Q. And you didn't go back afterwards?
3 A. No, I did not.
4 Q. After you recovered, you went to one of the Western European
5 countries, didn't you?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. You were not a member of the HVO. At least, I suppose you
9 A. No.
10 Q. In that case, it's a lie.
11 A. I don't know what you mean.
12 Q. Can you please take a look at page 14 of your 1994 statement. Can
13 you please find in paragraph number 3 of this page, a sentence saying,
14 "All of that took place on the same day on November 5th." It's in the
15 middle of the third paragraph.
16 A. Just a moment, please.
17 Yes, I've found it.
18 Q. Please read it for us.
19 A. Do you want me to read it out loud?
20 Q. Yes, I do.
21 A. "All that took place on the same day on the 5th of November.
22 After I was released" -- "All of that took place on the same day, on
23 November 5th. After my release, I wasn't able to leave Orasje. Instead I
24 had to go back to the Bosnian HVO army."
25 Q. Please stop there. Can you please explain to the Chamber what is
1 the truth? Is it true that you were not a member of the HVO or what you
2 said to the Prosecutor in 1994 is actually true?
3 A. I was not a member of the HVO, and I can explain. The way it's
4 written here means that I wasn't able to go directly to Croatia. It
5 doesn't say here whether I stayed there for three months or two months.
6 And this other thing about the position is not clear to me. I didn't
7 spend a single day at the front.
8 Q. Thank you. So you were never at the front.
9 A. No, not for a single day.
10 Q. Can you please read the last paragraph on that page for us.
11 A. "As I have said, while I was a soldier at the front, I was allowed
12 to go" --
13 Q. Please slow down for us. The paragraph that gives with the
14 following words: "I went back to the front line with the HVO." Please be
15 calm and concentrate.
16 A. Well, I'm very concentrated, unlike you.
17 Q. Please read for us.
18 A. No problem.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Witness, when you start reading, read slowly,
20 and please don't be rude to counsel.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right. I simply wanted to
22 respond in kind.
23 Should I read now?
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead with what counsel has asked
25 you to read, and read slowly.
1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] "I went back to the positions with
2 the HVO. Out of five people that were released from the camp, just like I
3 was, the three of us were sent back to the positions, which is where they
4 probably are today, because they were unable to get papers. When I say
5 "positions," I mean positions or front line between Orasje and Bosanski
6 Samac. The front line is about 2 kilometres away from Bosanski Samac. So
7 this is an absurdity, because this is not the front line of Bosanski
8 Samac, Orasje, because it's 2 kilometre away.
9 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. If you don't mind, I simply asked you to read this out calmly for
11 us and not give any comments.
12 A. All right.
13 Q. Please go ahead.
14 A. Should I read on?
15 Q. Please wait. I need to check the transcript, because I want to
16 make sure that all the information we need is in there.
17 [In English] You can read after this sentence, which is "The front
18 line is about 2 kilometres away from Bosnia-Herzegovina." So next
19 sentence is as follows -- without any comment, please. Next sentence
20 from your statement, please.
21 A. So the front line is approximately 2 kilometres from
22 Bosnia-Herzegovina. "Some of the prisoners that were exchanged in Tuzla
23 and fought in Travnik, I'm one of the lucky ones that was able to get
24 out. On Bosanski Samac, Orasje front line I stayed until the 5th of
25 January, 1994, when I was able to arrange for myself to travel. I was in
1 104th Samac Brigade of the HVO army, as I've said before. While I was a
2 soldier at the front line, I was allowed to go to Croatia and fix my
3 teeth, because my teeth had been pulled out in the camp. I was also
4 arranged to visit my parents. I was given permission to go there. I had
5 a ticket which I was able to pick together with the eight packages, but I
6 wasn't allowed to wear my uniform."
7 Q. [Interpretation] Would you please pause there for us. In 1994
8 when you gave this statement to the Prosecutor, did you give the statement
9 of your own free will? Did anyone from the Prosecution harass you or give
10 you any kind of promises?
11 A. Well, continue. What did you want to say?
12 Q. Well, this was a question.
13 A. No, nobody harassed me. I gave the statement on my own free
15 Q. You signed this statement, at least the English version of it,
16 didn't you?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. So this statement was given two years after the unfortunate events
19 that you experienced in 1992; isn't that so?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. So your memory was quite fresh at the time, wasn't it?
22 A. Yes. Just as it is now.
23 Q. Can you please explain to the Chamber what is the truth in fact.
24 Can you please clarify for us and tell us whether you were a member of the
25 HVO or not.
1 A. I've already told you that I was not, and I can explain. I was
2 in Croatia. I have my refugee papers. I have all the documents that can
3 prove where I was employed and so on. So if you will allow me, I can show
4 this to this Chamber.
5 Q. Well, the problem that we have here is your statement. Did you --
6 what you just read from your statement in 1994, is this true or not?
7 A. I'm saying for the third time, it is not true.
8 Q. Well, why did you lie in 1994, then?
9 MR. WEINER: Objection.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
11 MR. WEINER: Objection to this last statement, characterisation.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't understand because it seems to be a
14 MR. WEINER: He can ask him about the contradiction. He's
15 accusing him of lying. He can say, "Why is it incorrect?" He claims he's
16 got papers. He can ask him why it's incorrect, what's the reason for
17 the contradiction.
18 JUDGE SINGH: Mr. Pantelic, perhaps you can ask him -- you've
19 given us two versions now. One version is probably a lie; which one?
20 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Well, you've just heard His Honour Judge Singh: One of these
22 versions is a lie. Can you tell us which statement is a lie? Is your
23 statement from 1994 a lie or what you're saying now a lie?
24 A. If you allow, I wouldn't call this a lie, because this has been
25 translated many times and I'm not sure in which context it was
1 translated. As I've said, I have papers, I have arguments, I have
2 witnesses who can confirm where I was at the time. This means that I
3 have documents, witnesses. So please go ahead and tell me what do you
4 want me to demonstrate here.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Perhaps the problem here is that the way the
6 statement which you have just been reading is understood is that you were
7 a member of the HVO and you were even on the front line, as you have read
8 yourself. Now, if you are saying that the translation, or whatever,
9 perhaps the translation was wrong, then you better explain that.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, for example, I read there in
11 the statement that it said that I considered myself lucky that I was able
12 to leave. And then all of a sudden it says that I was at the front.
13 Perhaps what I originally said was that I considered myself lucky that I
14 didn't have to go to the front. I don't know how it was translated. As
15 I've said, I have papers that I can show to the Chamber. My -- these
16 papers are at home, but if necessary, I can provide them to you tomorrow.
17 And these papers can explain where I was and what I did.
18 It says here that I was at the front line until the 5th of
19 January, 1994, when in fact I arrived in the Netherlands on the 1st of
20 January and I reported on the 14th of January. Which means that there are
21 a lot of things here that don't click together.
22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. However, we are now talking about the fact whether you were a
24 member of the HVO unit or not. This is the only thing that we are
25 concerned with right now. So what is a lie? Is a part of your statement
1 from 1994 a lie, the part where you say that you were a member of the HVO,
2 or what you are telling the Chamber now is a lie, what you are telling now
3 about yourself not being a member of the HVO? Please tell us what is it.
4 A. I wouldn't call this a lie. I would call this an error. A lie
5 and an error are two different things. So I can explain that this is an
6 error. I don't know how this error came about, perhaps at the time when
7 they were translating it, or if we perhaps remind ourselves under which
8 conditions these statements were given in 1994. So that in itself could
9 lead to an error. And there are other illogical things in this
10 statement. We are here now talking about different things, wood and
11 metal, you know. These are two completely unrelated things, and I don't
12 know how they came to be included in the statement.
13 Q. During your compulsory military service, you served in the
14 engineering corps, didn't you?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And you were expert for mines and explosives, weren't you?
17 A. Well, I wouldn't call myself an expert, but yes, I had some
18 knowledge about it.
19 Q. While you were serving your -- in the military during your
20 compulsory military service, did you work with mines and explosives?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. When you were arrested in the Samac MUP, did anybody question you
23 about your participation in the armed formations in Samac?
24 A. Yes. Among other things, they questioned me about that as well.
25 Q. You were tried by a military court in Bijeljina, weren't you?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Based on the criminal report of the police chief of Bosanski
3 Samac, this case was taken over by the military prosecutor; isn't that
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. And after the -- after certain proceedings were launched, the case
7 was suspended; isn't that so?
8 A. Yes. But it took several years.
9 MR. WEINER: I'd object. That's not correct. The case was
11 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't get your --
12 MR. WEINER: The case was dismissed, not suspended. Dismissed
13 for no evidence.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. You are trying to -- yes. It wasn't
15 correct to say that this -- the case was suspended.
16 MR. WEINER: It was dismissed for insufficient evidence.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. That is the position of the Prosecution, as
18 far as the case goes.
19 Yes, Mr. Pantelic. The Prosecution's position is that this case
20 was actually dismissed.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Could you bear with me just a moment, please, I
22 have to consult with my colleagues about these documents so we can clarify
23 that. Although I don't think it's of so big importance whether it was
24 dismissed or suspended, in the particular case. But, please.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay.
1 [Defence counsel confer]
2 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours. Well, it is not of
3 significant importance whether this case was suspended or dismissed.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: So you don't take issue with the Prosecution's
5 position that it was dismissed.
6 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, according to my information, which is not
7 a matter that we can discuss with this particular witness -- according to
8 my information, the case was suspended due to the fact that he was
9 exchanged. That's all. But this witness obviously cannot be informed
10 about this legal fact or a mere -- it's a matter for evidentiary -- one of
11 the submissions, we can raise that in final submission or whatever.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
13 MR. PANTELIC: I don't want to waste time now.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, would you allow me a
18 JUDGE MUMBA: No. If the Prosecution think it is important, they
19 will re-examine you. They will ask a question about that, and then you
20 will be allowed to explain.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
22 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Sir, in 1992, owing to some family inheritance, you were
24 considered a fairly wealthy man, weren't you?
25 A. Well, I wouldn't call myself a wealthy man, but my father comes
1 from one, yes. But I had a decent life. I had a good standard.
2 Q. Can you tell us what was your average salary in March and April of
4 A. Between 1500 and 2.000 German marks. And at that time minimum
5 wage was about 460 German Marks. So compared to that, I had a very good
7 Q. So you would describe yourself as a reasonable man who has no
8 tendencies to exaggerate.
9 A. Yes. And I can prove that.
10 Q. Can you please turn to page 6 of your 1994 statement. But before
11 you read the relevant paragraph, as far as I remember, you said that in
12 1992, you drove a Ford Capri.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And it was seized or confiscated by the paramilitaries.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. What year was the car made in?
17 A. I think it was an '80 something. I don't know exactly what year.
18 Q. How much did it cost at that time in April in 1992?
19 A. Between seven and eight thousand German marks.
20 Q. Thank you. Would you please kindly read the following sentence,
21 in the middle of the second paragraph, which begins with the following
22 words: "Like a true Bosnian."
23 A. "As a Bosnia, there was not one evening I would not go out without
24 1.000 marks in my pocket. I have lost all this because it was stolen
25 from me. And I -- the Serbs -- I have lost all this because it was stolen
1 from me. The Serbs probably killed others for more money. My car cost
2 73.000 German marks and they took that from me as well."
3 Q. What you have just read out is not true.
4 A. No. It could be 7.300 German marks. So it could be between seven
5 and eight thousand German marks. So this is wrong.
6 MR. WEINER: Your Honour.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
8 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, for the record, I've discussed the
9 statement with some of the Defence attorneys. It is illogical in places.
10 It is filled with errors. It is not -- doesn't even follow any order at
11 times. If they -- if you want it as an exhibit, I'll turn it in. He's
12 testified 7300 marks. I think twice he's testified to that. It says
13 73.000. We've never raised the issue of 73.000. He's trying to be
14 impeached with something that's definitely mistaken.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, Mr. Weiner, if a document is given to the
16 Defence counsel as a statement made by the witness, what do you expect the
17 Defence counsel to do with it?
18 MR. WEINER: Defence counsel actually spoke to me and -- actually,
19 the other counsel had spoken to me and we all had a laugh over it with
20 some of these mistakes, including that one. I just want to notify the
21 Court he's being impeached by errors, by an error on that particular --
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, I hope the Prosecution will do a better job in
23 re-examination and also explain it, because the Defence counsel is
24 supposed to rely on what is given to them as a statement made by the
25 witness. And then if, as it is happening now, that there are some
1 statements which are wrong, then it's up to the witness to explain. And
2 you can do that in re-examination.
3 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, because -- not to mention this
5 is international criminal court, this is a statement of around 16 pages,
6 which is quite extended statement and very serious, due to the fact that
7 it was made in 1994. And that was my approach, that this is a really
8 important -- probably this statement was one of the, I would say, elements
9 in puzzle for this indictment. So it's obvious it's very important to
10 proceed with this kind of questioning. Thank you.
11 Q. [Interpretation] So you were also able to describe yourself as a
12 man who was well informed about the events in Samac in 1992 in March and
14 A. Well informed? I don't know what you mean by that. But I was
15 well informed. I knew a lot, in view of the fact that I was working at
16 such a job.
17 Q. And you were curious. You knew a lot of things about your fellow
18 citizens at that time.
19 A. I wasn't curious, but I noticed some strange doings by my fellow
20 citizens. So this is something that drew my attention.
21 Q. The atmosphere in Samac was tense, wasn't it?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So Serbs went to Serb restaurants; Muslims went to Muslim
24 restaurants; and Croats went to Croat restaurants; is that true?
25 A. No.
1 Q. So all the citizens of Samac, regardless of their ethnicity, went
2 to restaurants and had interactions, socialised. There was no
4 A. Except for Cafe AS. Mostly the people of Serb ethnicity went to
5 that cafe, except for members of other ethnicities who happened to be
6 members of the 4th Detachment. I'm talking about the period immediately
7 before the war.
8 Q. And other cafes which were owned by Croats and Muslims, the guests
9 were of different ethnic groups. They were multi-ethnic.
10 A. Yes, more or less. I don't know what you mean by that, that they
11 were all Serbs or Muslims or Croats. But there were cafes where all --
12 members of all three groups went. For example, there was a Muslim-owned
13 cafe which was owned by Adic. So that was frequented mostly by people of
14 Muslim ethnicity. But this doesn't mean that it wasn't also frequented by
15 Serb -- people of Serb ethnicity. The cafe where I worked was
16 multi-ethnic, the place where I worked, the restaurant pizzeria. I don't
17 know whether they were spies or something.
18 Q. You are a fairly well-informed person. You knew quite well what
19 was going on in the town. We're talking about March and April 1992, as
20 you've said yourself.
21 A. Had I known what was going on, I would have left the town. I
22 didn't know what was going on. I did notice certain things, however, that
23 were being done by my fellow citizens of Serb ethnicity.
24 Q. Excellent. Let's look at page 2 of your statement.
25 The last passage before the end, the sentence starts: "I know
1 these things because of the way we talked with each other." Could you
2 please read from that sentence.
3 A. "I know these things because of the way we talked with each
4 other. For example, we would say -- "
5 Q. Could you please go more slowly -- slowly. Thank you.
6 A. "So for example, we would say, "Did you know this woman was having
7 an affair with this man?' I could draw a map and point out every home. I
8 could tell you their names, their date of birth, everything. All these
9 Serb soldiers, I saw at the front. I knew who they were, what kind of
10 cars they had, what kind of clothing they wore. Everyone in Bosanski
11 Samac knows these things."
12 Q. Thank you very much. So you stated this in 1994.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. So you were involved in the lives of your fellow citizens, who was
15 doing what, these kinds of things. This is something that you were
16 interested in?
17 A. Yes. This context --
18 Q. No, no. I haven't asked anything yet.
19 When you asked for asylum, did you provide a statement about the
20 things that happened in Bosanski Samac and the region?
21 A. This is a private matter, and I wouldn't talk about that, and I
22 don't know how you know whether I have been granted asylum or not.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Well, maybe, Your Honours, we can go into private
25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can you ask the people responsible for
1 changing the sessions to go into private session.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Just for a couple of minutes.
3 [Private session]
12 [Open session]
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we are now in open session.
14 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
15 Q. [Interpretation] To which police did you provide a statement in
16 the period between November 1992 and September 1994, and when precisely?
17 A. I gave a statement to the INTERPOL.
18 Q. In that statement, did you mention the events in Samac?
19 A. Yes, amongst other things.
20 Q. Did you inform the Prosecution about that statement you gave to
21 the INTERPOL?
22 A. I don't remember, but I think that I did. I don't remember.
23 Q. When you gave a statement to the Prosecution in 1994 until today,
24 did you give statements to anybody else in connection with the events in
1 A. I didn't understand exactly from which date when did I give a
3 Q. When you gave a statement to the Prosecution, from September 1994
4 until now, until today.
5 A. I think not. I don't remember the months exactly, but I gave my
6 first statement in September for the INTERPOL. But I don't know whether I
7 gave a statement to the Prosecution or to the INTERPOL first. But I think
8 I gave a statement to both in the same year.
9 Q. Did you give a statement to the Prosecution in the year 2000?
10 A. Yes, to the Prosecution but not to the INTERPOL, not to any other
12 Q. During your stay in Orasje in 1992, did you provide a statement to
13 Dragan Lukac, the chief of police?
14 A. No. No, I don't remember. I don't think I even saw him.
15 Q. Do you know Dragan Lukac?
16 A. Yes, I do.
17 Q. When did you meet him?
18 A. I don't know. I've known him for a very long time, perhaps for
19 20 years. I don't know.
20 Q. When was the last time you saw him?
21 A. The last time I saw him was a couple of months ago.
22 Q. Where?
23 A. In the Netherlands, as well as in Bosnia, amongst other places.
24 Q. And you discussed this case?
25 A. No. We have better things to talk about.
1 Q. Did you give a statement to representatives of the Muslim
2 information agency, AID?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did you provide a statement to representatives of the Muslim
6 A. I don't know that there was a Muslim army, but no.
7 Q. My mistake. Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, B and H army.
8 A. No.
9 MR. PANTELIC: I don't have any further questions, Your Honour.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: You're welcome.
12 Re-examination, Mr. Weiner?
13 MR. WEINER: Good afternoon.
14 Re-examined by Mr. Weiner:
15 Q. Good afternoon. I'd like to discuss some of the issues that
16 were raised with you on cross-examination. Let's begin with your
17 exchange. There was some discussion of that. Prior to being exchanged in
18 November, did anyone ever ask you whether you wanted to be exchanged at
19 that time, just prior to being exchanged in November of 1992?
20 A. We talked about two things. Nobody asked me directly. I mean,
21 they asked me, but this wasn't my wish. I was forced to. So I was happy
22 to leave that hell. But basically, I wasn't happy to be leaving my town
23 and my parents, so I was forced. But I had to choose the lesser of two
25 Q. How old were you at that time?
1 A. I was 23.
2 Q. And at the time of your exchange, where were the members of your
3 family, your parents, your brother? Where were they?
4 A. My father and I were exchanged on the same day. My mother was
5 exchanged about a month and a half after us, and my brother escaped via
6 Serbia even a year later. So I had to leave my mother and my brother
8 Q. Prior to your exchange, were you able to speak to your family and
9 discuss the situation where you were going to be leaving the area?
10 A. No, in view of the fact that I was detained in the camp. I didn't
11 even say goodbye to them.
12 Q. Where did you want to go at the time of the exchange, if you could
13 have gone somewhere and left the camp?
14 A. You mean when I left the camp, where I wanted to go?
15 Q. Yes. If you had the opportunity, where did you want to go?
16 A. When I left Bosnia, when I was exchanged, I intended to go. And
17 this wish came true. I wanted to go to a third country.
18 Q. Okay. And were you given any option of where you could go?
19 A. No.
20 Q. No one from Bosanski Samac sat down and discussed the possibility
21 of your exchange with you in November of 1992?
22 A. No.
23 Q. There were a number of questions concerning the interrogations.
24 What was your condition during those three interrogations, both physically
25 and emotionally?
1 A. I was in such a state that I was carried on a stretcher. That was
2 the state I was in. I was broken up.
3 Q. But during the interrogations at the SUP, what was your
5 A. I was in a very bad state. I had been beaten.
6 Q. When had you been beaten in relation to those interrogations?
7 A. This would mostly happen before or after the interrogation.
8 Q. During the interrogations, did anyone ask you what happened to
9 you, why you were beaten, why you were in that condition?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Now, did you have an option whether or not to give a statement
12 during the interrogation, or to even attend an interrogation?
13 A. No. I was coerced.
14 Q. Well, did anyone ever tell you that you didn't have to speak with
15 us, you can just stay in your cell?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Why didn't you refuse to give a statement?
18 A. Because I didn't dare. I was afraid for my life and for the lives
19 of my family.
20 Q. Now, you indicated that you signed three statements and three
21 blanks, blank forms; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Were you asked to sign those statements or ordered to do so, or
24 told to do so?
25 A. I was ordered, while being beaten. I also have to say that while
1 the -- or as the blank statements were being signed, I was being beaten.
2 And -- but during the interrogation by the police inspectors, I wasn't
4 Q. The police officers - let's just get this straight - asked you to
5 sign three statements?
6 A. Amongst other things. I can't hear -- the army and Serb special
7 forces members were also present, along with the interrogators, the
9 Q. Who had you sign the three blank statements?
10 A. I was forced by members of the special units who were from
11 Serbia. Amongst others, Laki, Neso, Lugar, Crni.
12 Q. Did you ever inquire why you had to sign any of these six
14 A. No, I didn't dare, since they were very savage. They didn't
15 really look for a reason in order to abuse anybody.
16 Q. Could you have refused to sign these statements?
17 A. Yes, I could. But that could have cost me my life. So in other
18 words, I couldn't really refuse.
19 Q. Were these statements voluntary, these six statements that -- the
20 three blanks that you signed and the three others that you signed for
21 the police inspectors?
22 A. Nothing was voluntary in the camp, not even going to the
24 MR. WEINER: Can we look at the two statements? Would the usher
25 please show the witness D28/3, the statement of March -- I'm sorry, May
1 8th, 1992.
2 Your Honour, do we take the break at quarter of or at 4.00?
3 JUDGE MUMBA: We're supposed to take the break at 15.45.
4 We seem to have -- the clock in the courtroom is -- is 15.45.
5 Yes, I think -- I can see that from here. So we shall take our break and
6 continue at 16.15 hours.
7 --- Recess taken at 3.44 p.m.
8 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner. Re-examination.
10 MR. WEINER:
11 Q. All right, sir. Let's go to D28/3 for ID, the statement of May
12 8th, 1992. Could you read the first line of the section that you said is
13 not true or you did not provide to the police.
14 A. Sometime at the end of 1991, my mother, and then the name of my
15 mother, told me that she had registered me in the SDA party. She informed
16 me of this, and I agreed with this. So from then on, what is stated here
17 is not true.
18 Q. What about the next line: "I did not attend party meetings or pay
19 membership fees"? Did you provide that information?
20 A. So from this point here, I didn't say this. What is written here,
21 I did not say. I would not have said something as stupid as that I
22 provided financing for my mother and my father. They had their own
23 earnings, so I was not responsible for them.
24 Q. No, no. What I -- let's take the sentence, "I did not attend
25 party meetings or pay membership fees." Did you say that to the
2 A. I don't know whether I said this. But what is stated here
3 underneath, I did not say. So from here -- somewhere from here until the
4 end of the page is something that I did not say at all.
5 Q. All right. Let's go to the next paragraph. So the section, "I
6 did not attend party meetings or pay party membership fees," just that
7 sentence, just that sentence alone, do you recall saying that?
8 A. Perhaps I did. As I said but not in this order.
9 Q. All right. Just one sentence at a time.
10 The next paragraph. I will read it, and you tell me whether or
11 not you said it: "I do not remember the exact date, but it must have been
12 about two months ago, when Ratif Atic, also known as Rajec, stopped me in
13 the street and told me to come to his cafe when I had time. I went to see
14 him two or three days later and he asked me whether I would like join a
15 newly established SDA unit and be issued a weapon. I told him that I
16 worked as a waiter to support my parents and that I did not have the time
17 for such nonsense. I did not show any interest later and was never called
19 That paragraph which was read to you, did you say that to the
20 interrogators on or about May 8th, 1992?
21 A. No.
22 Q. All right. Let us continue, that same paragraph. My next
23 question is: Is that true? Did those things happen relating to Ratif
24 Atic which are listed in this statement, that statement I just read to
25 you, did that happen? Not whether or not you were asked; did that happen?
1 A. No. I didn't see the man, and he didn't ask me anything.
2 Q. Okay. Let us look at the next paragraph. I will read it. "About
3 20 days ago when the news broke about the formation of the TO (Territorial
4 Defence) in Bosanski Samac, a man nicknamed Ibela stopped me in the street
5 and asked me if I wanted to join the TO in Bosanski Samac. He said that
6 the unit would consist of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. I accepted his
7 offer without hesitation, and I even told him that my brother, Safet
8 Dagovic, would join too, although I had not consulted him first."
9 Did you provide that information to the interrogators on or about
10 May 8th, 1992?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Next question: That paragraph which you claim you did not
13 provide, is that information true or false?
14 A. False.
15 Q. So it never happened.
16 A. No.
17 Q. Thank you. Could we now look at the next statement, D29/3 for
18 ID. Did you get a chance to read it?
19 What is the last line of the information that you provided? Could
20 you please read that last line.
21 A. I will read the last sentence. "I also would like to state that I
22 did not participate in any way in the formation of the SDA."
23 Q. Okay. The next sentence, let me read the remaining part of that
24 paragraph. "I agreed to join the BH TO two or three days before the war
25 broke out in our municipality because Muhamed Bicic, also known as Beca,
1 asked me to join and explained to me that the unit would consist of Serb,
2 Croats, and Muslims and that Zoran Blagojevic would be a commander of the
3 Bosanski Samac unit. However, when I realised who the members were, I did
4 not take any part of it. I was told that my name was on the list of
5 volunteers for the defence of the town, but I cannot explain how it got
7 Did you provide that information to the police interrogators?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Is the information concerning Muhamed Bicic and Ibrahim Salkic
10 true, or did that in fact happen? Did it happen, or did it not happen?
11 A. It did not happen.
12 Q. Okay. Thank you. Last week, during cross-examination by
13 Mr. Zecevic, a question arose concerning your arrest. And two of the
14 Judges, Judge Singh and Judge Williams, asked you questions concerning
15 your arrest, and we never had an answer.
16 Our question to you, based on the Court's question, is: Why were
17 you arrested, if you know, on or about May 5, 1992?
18 A. I don't know.
19 Q. Did any of the police officers, soldiers, ever tell you why you
20 were being arrested?
21 A. They never told me directly why. The only reason was that I
22 differed from them, probably.
23 Q. When you say you differed from them, what do you mean?
24 A. Well, I wasn't of the same ethnicity as them, and I also wasn't a
25 member of the 4th Detachment or any other paramilitary formation.
1 Q. Was your arrest the result of any criminal misconduct on your
3 A. No.
4 Q. Your fellow citizens who were held with you at the SUP, at the
5 police station, were those persons members -- were those persons members
6 of the military, or were they civilians?
7 A. All of us were civilians.
8 Q. Of what ethnic group were all these people that were being held at
9 the SUP?
10 A. People who were held in the SUP were Bosniaks, Muslims, or Croats,
12 Q. Why were they arrested, if you know?
13 A. Well, I suppose for the same reason as I was, which means that
14 they were of a different ethnicity.
15 Q. Why were those persons beaten, if you know?
16 A. I don't know. I didn't see a reason to beat them, but they were
17 beaten. They beat us, rather.
18 Q. And why were you beaten?
19 A. I don't know.
20 Q. And the persons who held you and beat you, of what ethnic group
21 were they?
22 A. They were Serbs, Orthodox.
23 Q. Now, there was some talk concerning the vehicle which you owned.
24 Could you please describe that vehicle to this Chamber.
25 A. That vehicle was Ford Capri. As I've stated before, it was some
1 ten years old at the time. The price I paid for that car was between 7
2 and 8 thousand German marks, so it wasn't 73.000 marks, as was written in
3 the statements. I don't know of any Ford vehicle costing that much. What
4 I said I stated clearly, everybody knows what car I drove at the time, so
5 I couldn't have said anything that wasn't true.
6 Q. Now, sir, what condition was the car in, in April of 1992?
7 A. It was in good condition.
8 Q. And what happened to it?
9 A. My car was driven by a member of the 4th Detachment. I named that
10 man last time, but I can repeat here that his name is Markovic, Nino. He
11 was the son of Borivoje, known as Smudj. I saw him drive my car. And it
12 was in a very bad condition.
13 Q. Did anyone ask for your permission to take the car, or did anyone
14 pay you for the car?
15 A. No. That was all done while they beat me, which means that the
16 car was forcibly confiscated from me, together with the car's papers.
17 Q. Now, sir, there was some talk concerning forced labour during
18 cross-examination. And there was an indication that your brother worked a
19 certain number of days. Was your brother ever paid for any of the work
20 which he performed?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Were you ever paid for any of the work which you performed?
23 A. No.
24 Q. Were your parents ever paid for any of the work which they were
25 forced to perform?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Let us move on. You were released or exchanged in November of
3 1992. Could you please tell us what you did from November through the end
4 of -- from November 1992 through the end of 1993.
5 A. After the exchange, I went to Orasje. After a certain time, but
6 brief amount of time, which means just a few days, I went to Croatia. In
7 Croatia, I started working in Istria to be precise, in Novi Grad. I
8 worked there as a waiter, and I can say with certainty when it comes to
9 these dates and my alleged serving in the HVO, I can tell you that I can
10 show you a document which shows that I was, on the 8th of December, in
11 Croatia. And it's not true that I left Croatia on the -- for the first
12 time on the 5th of January, 1994, because I, in fact, arrived in the
13 Netherlands on the 1st of January. So that is not true. If you will
14 allow me, I can show you the document.
15 Q. Do you have it with you?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, for the --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
19 MR. WEINER: He has ...
20 JUDGE MUMBA: What document is it?
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This is a document that was issued
22 to me by the International Red Cross in Zagreb on the 8th of December,
23 1992, which means that it was issued to me personally. And that was a few
24 days after I was exchanged, perhaps a month after I was exchanged. This
25 is the document I'm talking about.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner, maybe you should look at it --
2 MR. WEINER: Yes.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: -- and see whether or not we should proceed.
4 MR. WEINER: You can show it to Defence counsel.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If you will allow me.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner, the witness wanted to say something
8 MR. WEINER: I'm going to take him through the document in a
10 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
11 MR. WEINER: [Microphone not activated] Could that document be
12 marked for ID?
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have a number for it, for
14 identification purposes only.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It's P47 ter ID.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
17 MR. WEINER:
18 Q. Sir, could you describe the document, please. Describe it to the
19 Court, tell us what it's about. Where the -- describe the document first,
20 and then I'll ask you a few more questions about it.
21 A. This is a document which confirms that I, as is stated here,
22 Dagovic, Esad, was detained in a camp in Bosanski Samac where I was
23 registered on the 13th of May, 1992 in prison in Bosanski Samac. It also
24 says that I was regularly visited from the 13th of May, 1992 until the 5th
25 of November, 1992. I was released on the 5th of November, and this
1 document was issued to me on the 8th of December in Zagreb, which
2 basically denies that I left Orasje in 1994, because Zagreb is located in
4 Q. Okay. Sir, if the usher could move the document down, and we
5 could see -- and could you show the Court where it's dated, please.
6 A. The document was issued to me on the 8th of December, 1992.
7 Q. And where was it issued to you?
8 A. The document was issued to me in Zagreb by the International Red
10 Q. And what have you done with that document since that date? Has it
11 been in your possession, or ...?
12 A. The document was in my possession the whole time.
13 Q. And that handwriting above the date, it looks like January 5th, I
14 think, 1994. Whose handwriting is that -- first, whose handwriting is
15 that? It looks like pencil marking.
16 A. This is my handwriting. I wrote this now, during the break,
17 because we heard here that I had stated in my previous statement that I
18 had left Orasje on the 5th of January, 1994, which is absurd because I was
19 issued this certificate on the 8th of December, 1992, which is two years
20 prior to that.
21 Q. Thank you.
22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Weiner, I wonder whether actually it could go
23 back on the ELMO for one second.
24 MR. WEINER: Sure.
25 JUDGE WILLIAMS: And I'm interested in the lower part with the
1 little boxes. On the left-hand side, "was released on 5th of November,
2 1992," and then we have three possibilities. And if my eyesight is
3 correct, is there a mark in the middle box?
4 MR. WEINER: That's --
5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Maybe you could ask the witness that question,
6 and also what it means, "according to the authorities versus ICRC auspices
7 or according to a/m person." Just for the sake of clarity. I'm uncertain
8 as to what that means.
9 MR. WEINER:
10 Q. Do you see the portion of the letter or the document that Judge
11 Williams is referring to, Mr. Dagovic?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. There are three boxes. Box number 1 says: "under the ICRC
14 auspices." Box number 2 says: "According to the authorities." And box
15 number 3 says: "According to a/m person." Are any of those three boxes
16 X'ed or checked off?
17 A. Yes. The one saying, "according to the authorities."
18 Q. Okay. Do you know the reason that that box was checked off, sir?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And what is the reason that it was checked off?
21 A. Well, if we look at this text, we'll see that this applies to the
22 situation. So it can be either a case where a person is released under
23 the ICRC auspices, it could apply to a person who was registered in the
24 camp. So if somebody was in the camp and was not exchanged, then this
25 item would apply.
1 The other item, according to the authorities, means that based
2 on what the authorities, or rather, the International Red Cross, said,
3 this is the situation.
4 And the third item applies to a case where this would be issued
5 based on the statement of the person in question. So that would be a
6 third situation.
7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Weiner, I'm not exactly clear that I
8 understand the second and third possibilities.
9 MR. WEINER: At this point, Your Honour, I can see if we can
10 get some sort of clarification. I could only speculate as to what some of
11 these means -- some of these different options concern. I probably have
12 some different views than he would have and -- but I will see what I
13 could -- I'll see what we can do on this matter.
14 Thank you.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner, I know it's just been marked for
16 identification, but as our usual practice is, it's to be kept by the
17 registry staff. Does he need it? Because then we can just get a
18 photostat copy, because we have all seen the original.
19 MR. WEINER:
20 Q. Mr. Dagovic, do you need that document, or would a copy be
21 sufficient, or do you need the original and we'll keep a copy? What is
22 you preference, sir?
23 A. I have an original as well. This is a copy. You can keep the
25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
1 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
2 One moment, Your Honour, please.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
4 [Prosecution counsel confer]
5 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
6 Q. Now, sir, you're in Zagreb, and what do you do next? You go see
7 the Red Cross in Zagreb in January. What's your next step?
8 A. First I went to my friend's in Krusevica in Slavonia. I spent a
9 certain period of time there. Then through my friend, I found out that
10 certificates were being issued in Zagreb, so I went there, and I got a
11 certificate. After that, I went to Istria, where I worked, and where I
12 was registered, and I regularly collected my aid payments, the aid that
13 was provided for refugees. And I have the originals of all of those
14 documents, but they're at home. So I could obtain them by tomorrow.
15 Q. And what was the time period that -- actually, first, who were you
16 receiving aid payments from, from what government?
17 A. From the Croatian authorities in Croatia, i.e., from Caritas.
18 Q. Now, how long were you receiving aid from the Croatian
20 A. It went on until I left for the Netherlands. So it lasted
21 throughout 1993. Until the end of 1993, because by 1994, I had left for
22 the Netherlands.
23 Q. Who were you doing during the year 1993?
24 A. I worked in a bar in Istria in Novi Grad, as a waiter.
25 Q. And during what time period did you work? Did you work the whole
1 year, or a portion of the year?
2 A. I worked the whole year.
3 Q. Do you have any payslips or documentation indicating that you
4 worked that year at this certain bar in Istria -- I'm sorry, in Novi
6 A. No, I don't. But I could obtain it. I could call the owner of
7 that bar, if he still has those documents - and I believe that he probably
8 does - so I could get them for you fairly quickly.
9 Q. Now, these documents that you have, the -- let's go back to the
10 other one, the refugee aid payments. Do they indicate any address or
11 place you were living at the time?
12 A. Yes. It was Buraj 4 in Novi Grad, i.e. Alto camp Marida.
13 That was where I was registered.
14 Q. And how long were you living at that address?
15 A. I lived there until the end of 1993, until -- right up until I
16 left for Holland.
17 Q. Sir, what is your current immigration status?
18 A. I have Dutch citizenship.
19 Q. Is that based on asylum?
20 A. No.
21 Q. What is the basis?
22 A. The basis is three years of continuous residence in the
24 Q. And are you currently working?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. And how long have you been a working resident?
2 A. Since 1995, I think.
3 Q. Now, these papers that you have relating to the aid that you
4 received, where are they?
5 A. They are at my house.
6 Q. And are they in some certain location that you could get them
7 here, to this Tribunal?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And when could you have them here?
10 A. If you would like a copy, you could obtain them this evening. But
11 if you needed originals, then I would need one or two days for that.
12 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, at this point I have no further
13 questions. However, I wouldn't mind having the witness produce those
14 documents, since we do have -- since this is a search for the truth, I
15 think he should have the opportunity to provide those documents and see
16 what it says that -- relating to the aid that he was receiving at a
17 certain address within Croatia.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. There's no problem. It's up to the
19 Prosecution to arrange with the witness when he can be available to
20 produce them.
21 MR. WEINER: And I think it would be helpful also that he produces
22 them and also be present again in the courtroom to hand them in and
23 explain them.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, yes.
25 MR. WEINER: So even though, at least at this point of the
1 re-direct examination, I'm completed, I wouldn't mind the opportunity just
2 to finish, if it would be five minutes, in having him produce these
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That can be arranged with the witness.
5 I see Mr. Lukic.
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I just wanted, first of all, to
7 object. But then I also would like now to add something to what the
8 Prosecutor said. I believe that if the witness will provide the evidence,
9 as -- in the same way that he provided this document a little while ago, I
10 would like to have the Defence -- for the Defence to receive permission to
11 cross-examine based on these documents. So perhaps it would be possible
12 to receive the documents several days before so that we could prepare and
13 carry out cross-examination on those documents.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. There is nothing to stop the Defence raising
15 questions as a result of the production of the documents in question. And
16 for your request that they be given to you a few days so that you
17 can -- I'm sure that can be arranged with the Prosecution.
18 MR. WEINER: Yes, thank you. We'd have no objection. It's just
19 at this point trying to obtain the documents and taking a look at them and
20 seeing what we have there. Thank you very much.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, all right.
22 All right. Mr. Dagovic, you've heard the exchange that the
23 Prosecution is of the view that they would wish the documents discussed to
24 be produced. And since you were not warned in advance, you didn't have
25 them -- you don't have them with you. So it will be up to you and the
1 Prosecution, through the Victims and Witnesses Unit, to discuss when the
2 documents can be available.
3 And Mr. Weiner, you remember sufficient notice to the Defence,
5 MR. WEINER: Yes. I'm sorry. Your Honour, would you like me to
6 speak to this witness this evening, or do you want to leave it totally
7 through the Victims and Witnesses Unit to --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Since you have finished your re-examination and the
9 next batch will be on the documents that the witness is expected to
10 produce, I may as well ask the Defence whether they have any objection to
11 your contacts with the witness as from now on.
12 MR. WEINER: Those would be limited to getting the documents here.
13 MR. ZECEVIC: We don't have no objection, Your Honour. We don't
14 have an objection.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The contacts will be limited to the production
16 of the documents.
17 MR. WEINER: Yes. That's what I intended to do, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So Mr. Dagovic, you are released for now, but
19 we will expect you to come back and discuss the documents that you are
20 required to produce.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] If I may be permitted to say, since
22 you promised me that I would have the opportunity to say something, and
23 I -- because I wasn't in contact with the Prosecution, I have a couple
24 more very good documents which have been discussed during this
25 examination. I even have a tape recording. So if you would permit me to
1 submit that, or for us to listen to that all together here. I also have
2 my military booklet where my vez [phoen] is stated and where it states
3 where I was supposed to report. I also have a payment slip which would
4 show you what the document looks like when you receive money. And this
5 recording, this audiotape, has to do with the payment or salaries for
6 people. It's about -- a person is mentioned here who was discussed
7 yesterday who was on the payroll of the workers of the hospital. So I
8 would like to submit these documents and listen to them together, perhaps,
9 if the Court will allow that.
10 I would also like to state -- I would also like to state the dates
11 that we discussed here about the dates of my trial in Bijeljina, after my
12 exchange. If we look at it carefully, the gentleman didn't know where and
13 when I was exchanged, so that they are talking about a month earlier in
14 Bosanski Samac. In fact, I was exchanged one month later in Dragalic, in
15 Croatia, which obviously shows that these documents were either made
16 later. But it does indicate that something is not right here in relation
17 to the documents showing where and when I was exchanged.
18 Also, I wanted to ask something, whether these gentlemen also had
19 access to my medical records, my physician records. And if they hadn't,
20 perhaps I could provide them for them, because they were made by Dutch
21 doctors, by a Dutch panel of doctors, and they clearly showed the
22 consequences that I'm suffering from as a result of my detention in the
23 camp. And if these gentlemen are convicted, I intend to sue for damages.
24 Another thing: The apology that I received by the Defence of
25 Mr. Simo Zaric, I do not accept it, because at that time I needed
1 assistance, and I do not need this apology now. And I would like to -- I
2 don't need anybody's pity.
3 I also have a CD with all of the photographs, and I can also
4 submit that. The CD contains some 20 photographs, and they are very
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Witness, this is a criminal trial, and in
7 every criminal trial, the evidence is usually limited to only that which
8 is relevant to the indictment. So the Prosecution have elicited the
9 evidence they wanted from you, and the Defence have cross-examined. We
10 are only remaining with one part which the Prosecution wants to complete,
11 and that is the production of documents which indicate where you were
12 during your release or after your release. And that is all that the next
13 stage is limited to.
14 You can discuss with your advisors in the Witnesses and Victims
15 Unit, for instance, but as far as the Prosecution is concerned, their
16 contact with you will only be limited as to what has been stated before.
17 So any other evidence that you think may be relevant, you can discuss with
18 your advisors in the Victims and Witnesses Unit. It will be up to them to
19 discuss with the Prosecution and see whether or not there is need for that
20 to be produced.
21 So for you, you are free to go. And we thank you very much for
22 assisting the Tribunal, but we will still require your presence as
24 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, you wanted to say something?
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. At the break, I spoke with my
4 colleagues from the Prosecution, and we have one document which was not
5 admitted. It only received the ID numbers for them. These are the two
6 statements that the witness provided to the SUP. These are the D28/3 and
7 D29/3. When we questioned this witness, we provided the original B/C/S
8 statement as well as the English translation, so there is no reason why
9 these documents should now not be admitted and -- into evidence and be
10 given numbers, because we had these documents be given ID numbers so that
11 this -- they could be admitted through this witness and that he could
12 answer questions about the documents.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner, D28/3 and D29/3.
14 MR. WEINER: Yes, Your Honour, we have no objection to these
15 documents being admitted. However, we're not conceding that they are
16 truthful. We are allowing them to be admitted for what the testimony
17 basically concerned.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
19 MR. WEINER: We're not making any statement indicating the
20 truthfulness of those statements.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So they will be admitted into evidence.
22 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: And I'm sure they will retain the same numbers, but
24 let's just have confirmation from the registry.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. They will be Exhibits D28/3
1 ter and D28/3, and D29/3 ter and D29/3.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
3 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have two other suggestions Your
4 Honours. During the break that we just had -- the one-week break that we
5 had, I managed through my investigator to obtain the original statement by
6 Witness M, which was given at the SUP in Bosanski Samac on the 9th of
7 November, 1992. And if you remember, we need this statement because
8 the -- the witness is questioning the authenticity of his signature. This
9 is document D22/3 and D22/3 ID, so I would like now to have admitted the
10 original statement of that witness into evidence.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Any objection, Mr. Weiner?
12 Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honour please, may I just find the
14 document first? I'm trying to find a copy of it. It's taken me somewhat
15 by surprise.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And while we're waiting for my learned
18 friend, in the meantime, I have received three official translations
19 of documents D17, D25/3, and D26/3, which were only so far given in the
20 B/C/S version. So perhaps we could use this time to admit those documents
21 as well.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: You said D17, and then D25/3 and D26/3?
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. And D17/3.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: And was the reason for non-admission only that they
25 didn't have English translation?
1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes, we were just waiting for the
2 English translation. They are two exchange lists and also the decision to
3 initiate proceedings against Defence Witness L, which we analysed together
4 with him but we didn't have the official translation at that time.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: I think that there probably won't be a problem with
8 these documents.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Which ones?
10 MR. DI FAZIO: The ones that have been raised by my colleague
11 Mr. Lukic. But --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: No, I mean the first batch or the -- all of them?
13 MR. DI FAZIO: All of them.
14 I -- if my learned friend is able to point out which particular
15 documents he wants to deal with and conduct this exercise with and gives
16 us some time, we can quickly have a look at that, check the transcript,
17 give us -- and provide the Chamber with a clear, coherent picture of our
18 position. At the moment, I'm taken somewhat by surprise, and I -- I don't
19 quite know how to respond without having an opportunity to check the
20 transcript. So --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Then there's no harm in you being given an
22 opportunity to check, to go back.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. If we could do that, and perhaps if we
24 could provide a response, say tomorrow.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Later.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Tomorrow, I'm sure we could make our position
2 absolutely clear tomorrow.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And I recall other Defence counsel, especially
4 I think Mr. Zecevic, saying he, too, had received the translations for
5 various documents.
6 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes, Your Honours. If I may, with all due respect,
7 I have informed the Prosecutors about the existence of the translation.
8 Already ten days ago, I gave them the copies of official translation. I
9 offered this into the evidence. They said they should need some time to
10 check it out. It was Wednesday or Thursday last week, as far as I
11 remember. If they're not ready now to respond to that, I wonder -- I
12 didn't raise the question because --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: It sounds an appropriate moment because my colleague
15 has already raised this issue about the documents. So whether my learned
16 colleagues can give us an estimation, whether they are prepared now to, I
17 don't know, express their views on these documents or are reserving their
18 time for some later -- later time in these proceedings. Thank you.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Di Fazio.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Would tomorrow at 2.15 be appropriate? Would
21 that cause too much inconvenience to --
22 JUDGE MUMBA: For all of them?
23 MR. DI FAZIO: For all of them.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The ones discussed by Mr. Lukic right now and
25 the once given to you already by Mr. Zecevic?
1 MR. DI FAZIO: By Mr. Zecevic. Thank you.
2 MR. ZECEVIC: If I may be of assistance, it refers to the
3 documents D22 A to I/2 ter ID.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Zecevic.
7 Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
8 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, allow me to address this issue also,
9 because it's a part of this general issue that we are dealing just right
10 now. In fact, this morning, the Defence were provided with the -- well, I
11 would say significant number of various documents by Prosecution.
12 In spite of all -- I'm speaking on behalf of myself and my
13 relation with the -- my learned colleague from the Prosecution. In spite
14 of all my efforts on the collegial basis between the Defence and the
15 Prosecution, I think -- it seems to me that something is going wrong. In
16 fact, they provided us with the number of documents only in English
17 translation, which inevitably goes to the -- to the merit. In shortly,
18 that means that they are in possession of certain documents on B/C/S
19 language, and we cannot find it here.
20 It also relates to certain number of witnesses -- witness
21 statement. Also in English without -- without B/C/S language. I would
22 like to remind my learned friends that it's an obligation towards our
23 clients, they have to be supplied with witness statement in their own
24 language that they can understand.
25 And also, the practice that we now -- today is 18 of February,
1 2002 -- that now they try to discover us, and practically they deliver a
2 certain number of witness statements from 1999, 1998, and all other
3 things. I mean, this practice is a little bit, I don't know, confusing
4 me, because I don't know where is the end of this, I would say, in-trial
5 discovery process.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: They are not -- they are not provided to you under
7 Rule 68 because Rule 68 gives the Prosecution a continuing obligation,
8 whenever they come across any documents they think may be exculpatory,
9 they are obliged to disclose them to the Defence at all stages, because
10 that's continuing obligation. So I'm wondering which Rule --
11 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, that would be very good for us, but I
12 don't see that these are exculpatory documents, especially certain of
13 witness statements.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, no. That is not up to you to agree with
15 them. They may have their own opinion on what they think of a document.
16 So if they think anything in it may be exculpatory -- but because you know
17 the defence of your client and you may not find them exculpatory, but I'm
18 only concerned with Rule 68.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Frankly --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Unless you show that it's not under Rule 68.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. And also the main problem is that, in fact,
22 we don't have this B/C/S version of documents and statements, so I kindly
23 ask this Trial Chamber to take a note about this practice and I hope that
24 our learned friends will try to resolve this problem. It was not my
25 intention to take the precious time of this trial proceedings, but I was
1 -- I was -- in fact, I was obliged to bring this practice, because -- I
2 mean, as I said, in spite of all our efforts to clarify this relation,
3 still --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. But I did say, Mr. Pantelic, I asked you, are
5 these Rule 68 documents or not? When they were giving them to you, what
6 did they say to you?
7 MR. PANTELIC: No, no. Your Honour. I don't see any reference to
8 Rule 68 here. No.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Maybe I can hear from the Prosecution.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Of course. That would be good, yes. Thank you.
11 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I think I would save the Court some time
12 in going into the details of what every single one of those documents
13 are. But no, there are no Rule 68 documents included in those documents
14 that were disclosed to the Defence counsel or were available Friday
15 evening and some today. The documents are disclosed because three Defence
16 counsel have invoked reciprocal disclosure, and as the Rules indicate that
17 whenever we come across something that could -- that should be disclosed,
18 we do. We disclose it simply because it's related to Bosanski Samac, not
19 because it's a Rule 68 material. Mr. Pantelic is not entitled to any of
20 those documents that were disclosed here today because he has not invoked
21 reciprocal discovery. Out of a matter of courtesy, we copy him on every
22 document that is disclosed to his co-counsel under their entitlement to
23 reciprocal disclosure.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: You don't mean to his co-counsel; you mean to the
25 other three Defence counsel for the other three accused.
1 MS. REIDY: That's exactly what I mean, Your Honours. For
2 Mr. Milan Simic, Mr. Simo Zaric, Mr. Miroslav Tadic, and they invoked
3 reciprocal discovery. And said every time that a document appears in the
4 system -- most of these documents, what happened, in fact, is there's a
5 new collection in Cyrillic in the OTP. We have been searching them. As
6 Mr. Pantelic says, he doesn't have something in English. Most of them
7 we've disclosed in B/C/S without any statement because we consider it may
8 be relevant and we don't want to hold on to the documents until we have a
9 translation. The other statements to which Mr. Pantelic refers are
10 informal witness notes --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: So then if you say he hasn't invoked the procedure,
12 then why are we discussing him? All you needed to say is not supposed to
13 receive these documents and he should ignore them because he hasn't
14 invoked the reciprocal --
15 THE INTERPRETER: Could the speakers please pause.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Sorry to the interpreters. We are speaking too
18 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, very shortly, if I may, concerning
19 the same question. I have already raised this issue this afternoon, and I
20 think it would be of assistance to this Trial Chamber that we have agreed,
21 Mr. Gramsci Di Fazio and myself, that we will go over these documents
22 which have been disclosed to us this morning and then he will try to solve
23 this situation and inform accordingly the Trial Chamber. Thank you, Your
25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Thank you. Then we don't have to deal
1 with Mr. Pantelic on these documents because, as you said, he's not in the
2 procedure that the others have invoked.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Your Honour. But allow me to say, okay, I'm
4 not a part of reciprocal discovery. But still Prosecution is obliged to
5 provide me well in advance certain number of documents they want to relate
6 during trial. I mean, I agree that I am not a part of discovery process.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: No. What do you mean? You are saying the
8 Prosecution have an obligation to show you or to give to you copies of the
9 documents they are going to use in the trial.
10 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, yes. Well in advance. So I have
11 to be in a position to prepare --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That touch on your client, yes.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. So I mean, this is a situation -- it's a
14 quite unique situation. They want to waive their obligation to provide me
15 with a certain number of documents because it's not related to reciprocal
16 discovery, which is wrong. I have to be supplied with certain number of
17 documents well in advance. Okay. I can agree, for example, if they --
18 they are in possession of certain documents which was seized, let's say,
19 last week, okay. That's okay. But Your Honours, they gave me a witness
20 statement of 9th of March, 1999 today. That's a problem. That's a
22 JUDGE MUMBA: For a witness who is on the list?
23 MR. PANTELIC: No, witness is not on the list, but still there are
24 certain events which might be of importance for the -- for the Defence.
25 So the bottom line is that I think that the Prosecution should
1 provide me with certain number of documents well in advance. Well, that
2 notion "well in advance," we could discuss, whether it's one month or 40
3 days or ten days. I'm absolutely free to hear the suggestion. But it's
4 not related to reciprocal discovery, not at all, Your Honours. Not at
6 JUDGE MUMBA: All I can say is, to aid the parties to discuss
7 these matters and agree, we all know what the Rules of Procedure say. And
8 it's a bit unsettling to hear Defence counsel talking about some
9 statements which appear to have been in the custody of the Prosecution for
10 a long time, only to be disclosed during the trial.
11 If, as we have already discussed, there is nothing which is within
12 the obligation of the Prosecution to disclose to Mr. Pantelic for the
13 defence of his client, then let it be so. We will proceed. Thank you for
14 your comments.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think we are supposed to have submissions on
17 Variant A and B.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: That's precisely right, if Your Honours please. My
19 colleague, Ms. Reidy, as I mentioned to you earlier last week is in a
20 position to make submissions to the Chamber on that topic, in a position
21 to make submissions to the Chamber both on the calling of any other
22 witnesses that the Defence have indicated --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: -- and also the question of admissibility of the
1 JUDGE MUMBA: No. First of all, she will deal with -- she will
2 respond to the request by the Defence, both Ms. Baen and Mr. Pantelic.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: In that case, I have nothing further to add, and
4 she's in a position --
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Which is on the transcript.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, thank you.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: After a decision is taken, then the next stage will
9 MR. DI FAZIO: My colleague Ms. Reidy will address the Chamber.
10 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honours. On that matter, may I just
11 seek clarification perhaps from the Bench and from Mr. Pantelic. On
12 reading the transcript of last Thursday, Mr. Pantelic indicated that he
13 would like to call the four co-authors of D27 through to D32, which were
14 the chain of custody statements. And he also indicated that he wished to
15 call the author of D24/1, which was a Mr. Dragan Kalinic, and then he went
16 on to admit -- to say that he wished to call two further prominent
17 political figures, who remained unnamed but were under
18 indictment by the Tribunal, and he was going to have discussions with
19 their lawyers. I don't know, he said he would inform the Chamber more on
21 Is he in a position to give us those names, or given the urging of
22 the Bench that this was not a matter of urgency, should I leave that to
23 one side and simply address the calling of Mr. Bjelica and, for example,
24 the signatories of the chain of custody statements?
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Perhaps, if he can give the names of witnesses he
1 didn't name. Otherwise, the others are identified -- the authors of the
2 documents are identified sufficiently.
3 Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. During the weekend, my
5 colleague, Mr. Zecevic and I, we spoke with the -- with the Defence
6 counsel for Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik and Mr. Brdjanin. I don't know his
7 first name, sorry.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Those are the two -- the ones you said are indicted
9 by the Tribunal.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Currently in the detention -- in the UN Detention
12 Mr. Brashic, who is the Defence counsel for Mr. Krajisnik,
13 informed us that he spoke with his client and that Mr. Krajisnik will be
14 able to come before this Trial Chamber to give his evidence but limited
15 only -- that's understandable, of course -- only to A and B issue. So --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: What type of evidence? What is he going to discuss
17 about A and B?
18 MR. PANTELIC: As a prominent member of SDS party and also
19 president of main board, he will be able to give us his knowledge --
20 personal knowledge of the existence of the document -- alleged document
21 called A and B Variant. That's one thing.
22 Another issue, with regard to Mr. Brdjanin, in fact he --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: So [Microphone not activated]
24 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, that's correct, very short testimony.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: And Brdjanin?
1 MR. PANTELIC: With regard to Mr. Brdjanin, we're still waiting a
2 response from his lawyer. He supposedly have to meet -- met him this
3 morning. So probably during this afternoon, we should have the answer for
4 Defence counsel of Mr. Brdjanin.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: And what is Mr. Brdjanin going to discuss?
6 MR. PANTELIC: Basically the same issue, his personal knowledge of
7 the existence of the alleged document, Variant A and B, and because he was
8 also prominent member of the SAO region of Krajina, Banja Luka region, and
9 also SDS party. So these two persons are here, and they are willing to --
10 well, for Mr. Brdjanin, I have to be precise. We are still waiting for
11 the response from his counsel.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. What is important for the Trial Chamber is to
13 know the nature of the evidence they are going to give. That is
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honour, thank you.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. I think that is sufficient for Ms. Reidy's
17 response to the requests by the Defence.
18 MS. REIDY: Yes. Thank you very much.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Not the request, the applications to call further
20 witnesses, actually.
21 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, in light of what Mr. Pantelic has just
22 explained, I will address the calling of the witnesses -- the witness put
23 on the record on the 12th of February, which was Mr. Milovan Bjelica and
24 the witnesses of the -- who are the signatories of the chain of custody
25 statements and Mr. Dragan Kalenic. I will address those as one bunch of
1 witnesses. And the last two witnesses I would address separately because
2 the nature of the evidence they could provide and who they are, that is I
3 consider distinguishable from the other two -- from the other six
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Very well. Yes, very well. You can go
7 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, let me state from the outset that the
8 Defence position that it opposes the calling of Mr. Bjelica, any of the
9 four signatories on the chain of custody statements, and the author of
10 Defence Exhibit 24/1, Mr. Kalinic, and it essentially opposes the
12 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sorry.
13 Mr. Zecevic.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Ms. Reidy, but this is probably --
15 this is probably the mistake in a transcript because it said, "let me
16 state from the outset that the Defence position is ..." I'm sorry, but I
17 didn't know that Ms. Reidy was actually addressing --
18 JUDGE MUMBA: It's the Prosecution.
19 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm sorry, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it's the Prosecution. We'll have that
21 corrected in the transcript.
22 MS. REIDY: Thank you. It is, of course, the Prosecution's
23 position that we oppose the Defence request. And we do so essentially on
24 two grounds: One that the Defence themselves have not established any
25 grounds why this Trial Chamber should exercise its discretion in granting
1 their request, which on any reading of normal procedure is -- would be an
2 extraordinary measure in the normal proceedings. And secondly, it is
3 unnecessary for this Trial Chamber to call the witnesses proposed in order
4 to address the task in front of them, which is the admissibility of
5 document Variant A/Variant B.
6 The Defence request, which was initially put on the record on the
7 12th of February was phrased as follows. And Defence counsel for Milan
8 Simic said that: "I was hoping that Mr. O'Donnell would not testify to
9 that, trying to interpret a document, because now I have to make a
10 request. All we are going to have to ask for now is the opportunity to
11 get this witness who prepared this letter from the SDS to complete all the
12 information with respect to these documents before the Trial Chamber can
13 make a determination on admissibility."
14 With respect to having reread that transcript and try to ascertain
15 the basis of the Defence request, it is somewhat vague, and we are
16 responding on the basis that the Defence is in fact requesting the Trial
17 Chamber to make either one of the following three decisions:
18 One, to permit the Defence to call its own witness midway through
19 the Prosecution case.
20 Secondly, that it's asking the Trial Chamber to exercise its power
21 under Rule 89(E) to request even further evidence on authenticity of
22 document P3 ID.
23 Or the third interpretation of the request could be that it is
24 asking the Trial Chamber to invoke completely a voir dire process.
25 On any of those processes that the Defence is actually seeking,
1 the Prosecution would oppose the request. And, as I said, above all we
2 reject the idea that any of those measures would be necessary in order for
3 the Trial Chamber to make a determination on admissibility.
4 First, the Prosecution would submit that whichever interpretation
5 of the Defence request is correct, it is clear that they are -- the
6 requests are an exception to the normal proceedings and that therefore the
7 Defence is in effect asking the Chamber to exercise its discretion in
8 favour of the Defence. And it therefore follows that the burden must lie
9 with the Defence to provide the grounds why this Bench should exercise its
10 discretion as requested.
11 And Your Honour, they have not discharged that burden.
12 And I turn again to what the Defence submitted as the reasons for
13 being necessary to call the witness. And perhaps for the record and for
14 the assistance of those in the Chamber today, that was at line -- at page
15 5741 of the proceedings on the 12th of February, at line 23. And the
16 asserted reason as to why this witness is to be called is because
17 Mr. O'Donnell tried to interpret document 23 -- Defence Exhibit 23/1.
18 Your Honours, first asking a witness to interpret a document does
19 not provide a ground in and of itself for requesting that the Chamber
20 permit a Defence witness to be called halfway through the Prosecution case
21 or, indeed, nor does it provide a ground to move to a voir dire procedure.
22 The Defence has simply not explained why asking a witness to interpret a
23 document should permit them to ask the Chamber to call a witness.
24 Secondly, even if that were -- even if there were grounds for
25 calling a witness on the basis that a witness had interpreted a document,
1 in this case, it's respectfully submitted that the Defence are wrong on
2 the facts. The witness did not try to interpret the document, as Defence
3 counsel themselves went to great length to make clear to the Bench. The
4 witness testified about the document only because Defence counsel
5 considered it necessary to its cross-examination and because Defence
6 counsel sought to have it admitted into evidence. And --
7 THE INTERPRETER: Please slow down. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Please do slow down for the interpreters.
9 MS. REIDY: I'm sorry.
10 And the document does indeed bear a Defence exhibit number.
11 When the witness was originally asked to comment on this document,
12 indeed on the provocative final sentence, it was by Defence counsel. The
13 Prosecution objected, and the Defence counsel argued that this was not an
14 interpretation of the document, but the witness was being asked to provide
15 his professional opinion based on his background.
16 The question in redirect which triggered the Defence counsel for
17 Milan Simic to request the witness was no more an interpretation of the
18 document than the original answer to the question posed by Defence counsel
19 for Blagoje Simic.
20 Your Honours, even when you examine closely the response of
21 Mr. O'Donnell, which again from the transcript appears to be the trigger
22 for the request, there is nothing in that response which, with respect,
23 the Prosecution can find merits granting the Defence a right to call a
24 Defence witness midway through the Prosecution case. He simply testified
25 that the document was referred to in other documents located across
1 Bosnia, that one document had been found by the international
2 stabilisation force. He referred to the fact that some documents which
3 cross-refer to Variant A and Variant B were obtained from the Bosnian Serb
4 authorities, and he referred to the fact that Mr. Karadzic himself had
5 made a clear reference to the Variant A and B at the time that he was
6 president of the SDS. Each of those points he testified in his answer
7 were a statement of fact and indeed covered ground on which Mr. O'Donnell
8 had already testified.
9 So Your Honours, with respect, even on the Defence's own
10 submissions, there is nothing so far in the testimony or the evidence
11 before this Trial Chamber which grounds or goes to substantiate the reason
12 for their request.
13 I would, however, now like to turn to whether or not there are
14 other reasons beyond those stated by the Defence as to why the Bench may
15 wish indeed to call either the witness named by Milan Simic's counsel on
16 the 12th of February or any of the five witnesses who Mr. Blagoje Simic's
17 counsel referred to on Thursday.
18 And with respect, Your Honours, the Prosecution's position is
19 simply that there are no other reasons to call any of the suggested
20 witnesses at this stage. And the reason for that is simply that the issue
21 before the Bench at the moment is one of determining admissibility of this
22 document. And whether the document should be admitted into evidence or
23 not is something to be determined pursuant to Rule 89 and the Rules set
24 out in that Rule, or whether through any reason according to Rule 95 why
25 the document -- or the inadmissibility of the document should be
1 precluded. The rules of inadmissibility are very, very clear and have
2 been pronounced on a number of times by various Trial Chambers and on more
3 than one occasion by the Appeals Chamber. The Prosecution has to
4 establish relevancy and probity in accordance with Rule 89(C), and in
5 establishing relevancy, we have to prove that there is an indicia of
6 reliability of the document. The Prosecution's position is that we have
7 done so. And if the Defence at some later stage wish to challenge the
8 Prosecution's evidence, they can, of course, do that.
9 The question, Your Honour, is when should they be permitted to do
10 that. And that arises when the Defence have the time to present their
11 case. If the Defence want to argue before the Bench the weight to be
12 given to this document, then they can do that and they should do it in the
13 Defence case and in their submissions. They cannot -- it is not the time
14 now to be arguing the weight of the document, when the matter before this
15 Bench is a matter of admissibility.
16 Your Honours, the question arises as to whether or not the
17 witnesses who are proposed by the Defence could in fact provide any
18 information which would assist the Bench in the determination of the
19 admissibility of this document. And Your Honours, it is submitted that
20 they would not.
21 Contrary to the submissions by the Defence that they are entitled
22 to call the author of a document or the people related to chain of custody
23 of the document before the question of admissibility is determined, the
24 Appeals Chamber in Celebici, as quite rightly pointed out, that
25 the decision in that case to admit a document did not in any way undermine
1 the rights of the defendant to a fair trial or to confront the witness
2 against him pursuant to Article 21, paragraph 4, subsection (e). The
3 Trial Chamber - and this is at paragraph 22 -- or sorry, the Appeals
4 Chamber, at paragraph 22, went on to say: "On the contrary, to require
5 the attendance of the authors at this time stage of the proceedings would
6 be, in the view of the bench, to acquire an extremely high standard for
7 the purpose of a fair trial envisaged by Article 20, paragraph 1.
8 Your Honour, the question for the Bench is a matter of
9 admissibility of this document and therefore of its relevancy and probity
10 and whether or not it is sufficiently reliable to meet the test of
12 Your Honour, should --
13 JUDGE SINGH: So coming back to your sufficiently reliable, can
14 you address us on that, the indicia that you want to rely on? Can you
15 come to that at some time, yes.
16 MS. REIDY: Certainly, Your Honour. Can I just seek a
17 clarification. Would you like me to argue on why we believe there is
18 sufficient reliance in existence or what these -- what "sufficiently
19 reliable" means?
20 JUDGE SINGH: No, what it means. But we are looking at those
21 documents -- at some time, please come back.
22 MS. REIDY: Okay. Then Your Honours, I would say that any of
23 the -- any of the witnesses -- the evidence before this Chamber which
24 makes this document, in the Prosecution's view, sufficiently reliable are
25 a number of factors. They start from the fact that we are able to show
1 that this document, although unsigned and unstamped, was not just found
2 once or in one place in Bosnia but that a number of copies of it were
3 found throughout Bosnia. We were able to show that numbers of the copies
4 were found with different numberings on it. The evidence is on the record
5 that contemporaneously a copy of the document was reproduced in a national
6 magazine Slobodna Bosna. We were able to show that the persons who
7 found the documents found them at different times, in different locations
8 and they were different people, the most recent one having been found, as
9 we said, by the international stabilisation force in Livno.
10 We were able to produce a number of documents which testify that
11 the document existed at the time the document purported to exist, that is,
12 in December 1991. And in particular, I'd refer the Bench now to the
13 Prosecution Exhibit P46, and those documents dealing 1 through to 10,
14 which in every case there is a cross-reference to the instructions on the
15 organisations of the activity of the Serbian people. And in a number of
16 them, specifically, for example, Article 4 of the instructions is cross
17 referred to, and it was the establishment of a Serbian municipality.
18 And perhaps I can direct you directly to one of those, which is
19 P46/8, that was the establishment of Donji Vakuf, and the cross-reference
20 of that -- in the establishment of the municipality of Donji Vakuf is a
21 cross-reference to Article 4 the Variant A/Variant B document, and the
22 same applies for the decision on the establishment of the Serbian
23 municipality of Tuzla, which I believe is P46/9.
24 We've also been able to show that this was discussed by and within
25 the SDS and indeed, as we said, by the president of the SDS, Mr. Karadzic.
1 Your Honours, we believe that that evidence shows sufficient
2 reliability that the document existed at the time we said it existed, that
3 it was indeed widely distributed, and that it was indeed acted upon in a
4 number of municipalities. Even if the witness who counsel for Milan Simic
5 proposed were to come and testify, and based on his statement -- or his
6 assertion in his letter, that is, that this document in fact originated
7 from a number of JNA officers, that wouldn't go to disprove any of the
8 reliable indicators we have put on the record. It wouldn't disprove that
9 the document didn't exist at the time we said it existed. It wouldn't
10 disprove that it was widely distributed to SDS offices. It wouldn't
11 disprove that it was received by SDS offices. And it wouldn't disprove
12 that the SDS party acted upon the instructions and set up a number of, for
13 example, Serbian municipalities in accordance with the instructions.
14 And Your Honours, it's our submission that all those factors go to
15 an indicia of reliability where none of the witnesses can call into
16 question that reliability. They could, as it appears Mr. Bjelica could,
17 call into question the authorship. Of course, the Prosecution case is
18 that that assertion is not reliable, nor does it fit with the evidence.
19 Indeed, perhaps if Mr. Karadzic would like to come and testify, then -- as
20 to his claim on the fiftieth transcript, that would be a great clarity as
21 to the authorship.
22 But Your Honours, that is in essence, is our submission. We have
23 provided a reliable -- indicia of reliability. There is nothing that any
24 of these witnesses who could come could do to challenge that reliability.
25 It would simply be the Prosecution -- I mean, the Defence is entitled to
1 raise their case as to -- they want to challenge this document. They want
2 to bring other witnesses who will argue as to the weight that will be
3 given to it, then they can do that. But they should do that in the
4 Defence case in the natural course of the proceedings. And it should not
5 be something that should go ahead at the decision -- at the time when the
6 Bench is making determination simply on the admissibility of the -- of the
7 evidence. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
9 In reply?
10 MR. ZECEVIC: Your Honours, if I may address the Court. I have
11 informed my learned colleagues from the Prosecutor bench that we have
12 designed Ms. Catharine Baen to deal with this -- with the legal
13 submissions and the reply on Ms. Reidy's, whatever was the -- Ms. Reidy's
14 position on calling this witness.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
16 MR. ZECEVIC: Since Ms. Catharine Baen is not present, I have
17 asked them that they should just not raise the legal submissions. Out of
18 the simple fairness, I didn't want to interrupt, but I have to ask the
19 Honourable Trial Chamber to give us the time until Ms. Catharine Baen
20 comes back and then she will do legal submissions on our part and as
21 well --
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
23 MR. ZECEVIC: Because he -- I'm sorry. Your Honours, I might be
24 misunderstanding, but I was of the impression that the order of the Trial
25 Chamber -- the ruling of the Trial Chamber was that the Prosecutor would
1 only refer to this specific claim for a witness, Mr. Bjelica, and then
2 the other witnesses which -- which my learned colleague, Mr. Pantelic, has
3 offered. And then that we will go on with the next witness. And then,
4 only after the ruling of the Trial Chamber on that, then we will have
5 legal submissions on the admissibility, relevance, authenticity, and all
6 the other aspects of this document. That was my understanding. I might
7 be wrong. And I apologise for that, but --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Actually, your understanding is correct.
9 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And the Trial Chamber is prepared to wait for
11 Ms. Baen to come.
12 What Ms. Reidy was asked to do was to respond to the application
13 by the Defence to call witnesses.
14 MR. ZECEVIC: Yes.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: And of course some of the submissions may overlap
16 with what appears to be final submissions. That's not the position.
17 MR. ZECEVIC: Exactly, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: So when Ms. Baen come, she also -- she will reply to
20 MR. ZECEVIC: She will reply.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Ask then the decision will be made whether or
22 not those witnesses can be called. Thereafter, there will be final
24 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you very much.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: And since you have indicated that this matter is
1 with Ms. Baen, the Trial Chamber will, of course, give Ms. Baen the
2 opportunity to do so.
3 MR. ZECEVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. Thank you very much.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: And if we may know when she is likely to come back.
5 MR. ZECEVIC: Well, Your Honour, I have the information that she
6 will be here on Wednesday morning. But I will check it out and inform the
7 Trial Chamber tomorrow by the beginning of the session.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We can adjourn this particular matter until
9 she's back, and then she can respond, and then the decision will be made
10 by the Trial Chamber, and whether or not final submissions will be
11 head, that will be decided later.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: I'm very grateful to Your Honours. Thank you.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: We may ask the Prosecution what is the position with
14 the witnesses.
15 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, the next witness is here and will be
16 dealt with by my colleague, Mr. Weiner. And I believe he has an
17 application to make to the Court in relation to that witness.
18 And just preceding that, could I just ask for clarification. In
19 Ms. Baen's submissions on the 12th of February, she did appear on the
20 record to make two submissions. One was about the request to call a
21 witness, and the other one was about a violation of the rules on
22 disclosure. And I don't know whether you'd like me to address that --
23 that second submission or indeed maybe wait for Ms. Baen to come in court.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I don't think I remember the violation on
25 disclosure. Which one? It pertained to what?
1 MS. REIDY: Ms. Baen -- she said in passing but then repeated her
2 submissions. She had made a submission that the disclosure of the letter
3 the 23 one, the response --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, the letter from the deputy --
5 MS. REIDY: -- disclosed on the 12th of February was a matter of
6 violation under Rule 68, she said.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, because of the late notice or the late
9 MS. REIDY: Well, that, of course is the argument. I mean, our --
10 we received it in-house. Tracking it down, it actually physically came
11 into the OTP's possession on the week of the 14th of January. So you can
12 see there was a matter of days or weeks delay. Now, we're willing to put
13 in submissions to whether or not that amounts to indeed a violation of the
14 Rules. But as I said, it's just because Ms. Baen had put it on the record
15 -- and I don't know whether it's actually something she wishes to pursue
17 JUDGE MUMBA: I think to be fair to both parties, if you want to
18 make any submissions on it, you can go ahead now, so that when she comes
19 back, obviously she will have read the transcript, so she'll be well
20 prepared for all the points that are being submitted through -- submitted
21 on by the Prosecution.
22 MS. REIDY: Well, Your Honour, I'm --
23 JUDGE MUMBA: If you have --
24 MS. REIDY: [Previous translation continues] ... a decision to
25 make submissions. But as I said, I'm happy to wait until Ms. Baen comes
1 back and sees whether or not it's something she wants to pursue if -- that
2 is, I was just rereading the transcript and her position is somewhat vague
3 to me. But if you -- if the Trial Chamber prefer me to address them now,
4 and I'm in a position to do that, I can. But as I said, maybe just wait
5 for Ms. Baen to come back and clarify her position.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Her position on that.
7 All right. Maybe we can wait for her, since it's difficult to
8 determine when there is no clarification from the counsel who is handling
9 the matter. All right.
10 Yes, Mr. Weiner.
11 MR. WEINER: Your Honour --
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me say this: We will not sit beyond 18 hours,
13 because there wasn't formal notice to the interpreters, for instance. So
14 we have a problem on that. So maybe we can just discuss if there is
15 anything to be discussed before the next witness is called, and then we
16 can start the witness tomorrow.
17 MR. WEINER: Yes. The only thing I was going to do, Your Honour,
18 is request protective measures for the next witness - if you want to go
19 into closed session for that - to request a closed session.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We can go into private session, I think, if
21 we are to discuss the reasons, since we may discuss the name.
22 [Private session]
13 Pages 6010-6014 – redacted – private session
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned
18 at 6.05 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,
19 the 19th day of February, 2002, at 2.15 p.m.