1 Thursday, 23 May 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 2.18 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. Cross-examination is continuing with
12 Mr. Pisarevic.
13 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Your Honours.
14 WITNESS: BLAZ PARADZIK [Resumed]
15 [Witness answered through interpreter]
16 Cross-examined by Mr. Pisarevic: [Continued]
17 Q. Good afternoon, Mr. Paradzik. The last thing we discussed
18 yesterday was the organisation of the local commune of Brod. The
19 questions I will now be asking relate mostly to the period before the 17th
20 of April, 1992.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction. Local commune of
23 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] The mistake in the transcript has
24 been corrected.
25 Q. In the local commune of Prud, as you say, a plan, some sort of
1 military plan, was adopted; is that right?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Was there a plan regarding civilian defence?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can you tell me whether you personally had any responsibilities in
6 the local commune of Prud?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What were your responsibilities?
9 A. My responsibility was the evacuation of the population, women and
10 children, organising boats across the Sava River, as well as accommodation
11 of refugees from Bosanski Samac.
12 Q. If I understood you correctly, that was your responsibility before
13 the 17th of April, 1992, wasn't it?
14 A. I was one of the people responsible for that. There were several
15 of us.
16 Q. Was this perhaps in the framework of the work plan of the civilian
18 A. That was an agreement involving Izet Izetbegovic, who was
19 responsible for civilian defence on the commune level, and he was looking
20 for someone from the local commune of Prud to contact on this issue. And
21 he asked us, as the one responsible on the municipality level, in the
22 event of a flow of refugees from Samac, whether we were able to organise
23 accommodation and transfer to the Republic of Croatia.
24 Q. Can you remember, Mr. Paradzik, when was this?
25 A. I can't give you the date.
1 Q. Can we agree that it must have been before the 17th of April,
3 A. Yes. Yes.
4 Q. Izet Izetbegovic was the vice-president of the SDA?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. He was a Muslim by ethnicity, wasn't he?
7 A. Yes, he was.
8 Q. On the territory of the local commune of Prud, was there a
9 military unit or, as we call it, company?
10 A. In which period?
11 Q. Before the 17th of April, 1992.
12 A. No.
13 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, it is again --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
15 MR. LAZAREVIC: Clarification of transcript. Here it says, page
16 3, line 9 and 10, "on the territory of the local commune of Prud was there
17 a military unit or, as we call it, company?" Mr. Pisarevic said a
18 specific word, satnija. This is a very specific Croatian word for a
19 military unit, and of course it does not mean a company anyway. So we
20 would like a more specific translation for this term.
21 [Trial Chamber confers]
22 JUDGE MUMBA: I thought that the translation was all right. Where
23 it says military unit or, as we call it, "company," which is normally used
24 even in English to denote a group of soldiers, a specific formation of a
25 group of soldiers.
1 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, I am aware of that. But maybe if the word
2 satnija, because we will use it in more occasions, would be good to use...
3 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
4 MR. LAZAREVIC: I'm not suggesting anything, of course. I don't
5 want to interfere in the interpreters' business, but ...
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe the Trial Chamber can find out from the
7 interpreters if there is any other way of interpreting.
8 THE INTERPRETER: "Company" is the correct translation of the word
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. All right. We proceed.
11 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Can you please tell the Trial Chamber now what position Mijo
13 Masic, also known as Mis or Mouse, occupied in the commune of Prud.
14 A. After the 17th of April, he was a commander.
15 Q. You claim that Mijo Masic was not the commander of that military
16 unit even before the 17th of April, 1992?
17 A. No, he wasn't.
18 Q. Did you remember, or do you know, that the locals of Prud dug
19 trenches in the direction of the Serb village of Trnjak?
20 A. No.
21 Q. You remember that trenches were dug on the embankment facing the
22 town of Samac, don't you?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. At points of entrance to the village of Prud, were there any
25 checkpoints put up?
1 A. No.
2 Q. How about the centre of the village of Prud?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Did the members of the ZNG, the Croatian National Guard, walk
5 around the village in uniforms with a red bandanna?
6 A. No.
7 Q. With a black bandanna. Correction.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. --
10 MR. DI FAZIO: -- whereas I'm not objecting to the line of inquiry
11 of Mr. Pisarevic, I have no desire to stop him in these questions, I think
12 that he ought to specify the time that relates to the questions. For
13 example, the questioning relating to Croatian National Guard walking
14 around with red bandanas, timing is of importance for that evidence to
15 have any value to you. The same applies to the question relating to the
16 digging of trenches facing Bosanski Samac, and the witness answered yes.
17 The question of when those trenches were dug is of course of some
18 importance to you, whether it was before or after the 16th and 17th of
19 April. So these -- whereas I don't object, it would be wise, I think, for
20 Mr. Pisarevic, and of value to you, for him to specify periods of time
21 when he's putting these sorts of matters to the witness.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, counsel. I think the point made by the
23 Prosecution is important as to being time specific.
24 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] I agree, Your Honours. All of
25 this is important. But before beginning my cross-examination, I warned
1 the witness that my questions would relate to the period before the 17th
2 of April, 1992. That's why I didn't consider it necessary to remind him
3 of this fact before every specific question and every specific action
5 Q. These trenches facing Bosanski Samac on the embankment in Prud,
6 were they dug before the 17th of April, 1992?
7 A. No.
8 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pisarevic, I wonder whether you could clarify
9 with the witness in relation to your questions regarding checkpoints, the
10 following: Were there any checkpoints anywhere in Prud at the time in
11 question, before April 17th, 1992? I ask this because your questions
12 referred to the entrance to Prud, sounding as though there was only one
13 entrance, and also the centre of Prud. So if you could seek
14 clarification, that would be very good. Thank you.
15 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Paradzik, I think you've understood the drift of the
17 Honourable Judge. Were there any checkpoints anywhere in Prud before the
18 17th of April, 1992?
19 A. There was one on the bridge over the Bosna River, manned by the
20 reserve police on the side of Prud.
21 Q. Mr. Paradzik, I would like to know: Did the locals of the Prud
22 local commune, or some other members, put up some other checkpoint in the
23 village of Prud?
24 A. As far as I know, no other checkpoint was organised.
25 Q. Can you tell me whether there were unorganised and arbitrarily
1 installed checkpoints in the local commune of Prud?
2 A. I wouldn't know that.
3 Q. And are you aware of the fact that certain inhabitants of the
4 local commune of Prud and other local communes populated by Croats went to
5 the war in Croatia to fight on the side of the Croatian army in the
6 Republic of Croatia in the period of the war in Croatia?
7 A. There were no organised trips to Croatia for that purpose.
8 Q. Do you know of any cases involving individuals from the local
9 commune of Prud who became members of the Croatian National Guard fighting
10 in the Republic of Croatia?
11 A. I don't know where other people went.
12 Q. Did you see in your local commune any of the locals wearing
13 uniforms of the ZNG?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Was guard duty organised in the local commune of Prud?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Did you have an established Crisis Staff of the local commune of
19 A. No, we didn't.
20 Q. Are you aware of the fact that Mr. Simo Zaric, when he went to his
21 home village of Trnjak to visit his mother, was regularly stopped and
22 searched at checkpoints of the village of Prud, whether official or
23 unofficial, self-organised? Are you aware of that?
24 A. As far as I know, Simo Zaric was able to move around freely
25 through Prud.
1 Q. Do you remember, Mr. Paradzik, the meeting between representatives
2 of the local commune of Trnjak and those of Prud held in the community
3 centre in the centre of Prud?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Can we agree that this meeting discussed the digging of trenches
6 by the locals of Prud, trenches facing Trnjak, which was populated by
8 A. I don't know the details of that discussion.
9 Q. Did you attend this meeting?
10 A. Not all of it.
11 Q. Do you know of one event when, on Christmas 1991, outside a cafe
12 in the centre of Prud, fire was opened from a machine-gun by Pero Majic
13 son of Iko, and another Majic, both of them Croats?
14 A. I wasn't there, and I don't know who opened fire.
15 Q. But are you aware of this shooting?
16 A. Shooting at Christmas is a custom. I don't know where the
17 shooting came from and who did it, but it's customary.
18 Q. You will agree it's not customary to shoot from a light
20 A. I don't know whether it was a light machine-gun or not.
21 Q. Do you know that in the period before 17th of April, 1992, Prud
22 was often visited by Stjepan Blazanovic, called Blaco from Slovanski Brod,
23 a Croat, member of the army of the Republic of Croatia?
24 A. Stjepan visited Dubica. His wife was from Dubica. I don't know
25 that he ever visited Brod -- Prud, sorry.
1 Q. Do you know that Mr. Meter and Mr. Pilipovic, from Slavonski Brod,
2 members of the Croatian army, used to come?
3 A. I am not. I don't know that.
4 Q. Do you know that on the 20th of April, 1992, in Prud, a plan was
5 developed for the occupation for the takeover of Samac?
6 A. I'm not aware of that.
7 Q. In 1992, was your telephone number 61634?
8 A. I think it was.
9 Q. Are you aware of the fact that on this plan, next to your name,
10 your telephone number was indicated?
11 A. No.
12 Q. If you can remember, was the telephone number of the local commune
13 in Prud at the time 61611?
14 A. I don't remember the number.
15 Q. Do you know Mr. Marko Bozanovic?
16 A. I do.
17 Q. Do you know that Mr. Marko Bozanovic, a Croat, was appointed
18 commander of the armed forces by the joint Crisis Staff of the HDZ and the
20 A. I know that under the decision of the presidency of Bosnia and
21 Herzegovina, Marko was appointed commander of the Territorial Defence.
22 Q. Do you know that this decision was made on the 15th of April,
24 A. I don't know the date of its adoption.
25 Q. Do you know that at the same time, at the same meeting, of the
1 same Crisis Staff, Alija Fitozovic was appointed his deputy, Alija
2 Fitozovic being a Muslim from Bosanski Samac?
3 A. I'm not aware of that.
4 Q. Is it true that the military unit, namely, company, was part of
5 the 102nd Brigade of the HVO, with a seat --
6 A. In terms of territory, it was connected with Odzak.
7 Q. Is it true that within this military unit there were weapons, such
8 as Kalashnikovs, recoilless cannons, 105-millimetres Ossa hand-held rocket
9 launchers and other weaponry?
10 A. No. They only had light weaponry.
11 Q. Will you tell me what you imply by that?
12 A. They had no Ossa hand-held rocket launchers or mortars or any such
14 Q. Does that mean that they had recoilless cannons?
15 A. It doesn't. They didn't have them.
16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pisarevic, I wonder whether you could seek a
17 clarification. Page 10, line 7 in response to your question concerning
18 the 102nd Brigade of the HVO, the witness's answer was: "In terms of
19 territory, it was connected with Odzak." What was connected? The 102nd
20 Brigade, or what? It doesn't seem clear to me.
21 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] All right, Your Honour. I will
22 clear it up immediately.
23 Q. Mr. Paradzik, my question was the following: Was your military
24 unit in a subordinate relation towards the 102nd Odzak Brigade, that is to
25 say, the 102nd Brigade of the HVO, which had its command in Odzak? In
1 other words, was it a part of that brigade?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Could you please answer the following question: Under what
4 command was this military unit? Who did it belong to?
5 A. It was part of the 104th Brigade. It was an independent company.
6 Q. Could you please tell me when this 104th Brigade was created?
7 A. After April 17th.
8 Q. The 104th Brigade belonged to the HVO; is that correct?
9 A. At that time, it wasn't called the HVO; it was called the
10 Territorial Defence.
11 Q. Are you aware of the fact that the commander of all military units
12 in the territory of the local commune of Prud was a certain gentleman
13 called Cavka, who was a member of the Croatian military in Croatia?
14 A. He was not a commander.
15 Q. Was the person by that nickname present in the local commune of
16 Prud both before and after the 17th of April, 1992?
17 A. It wasn't in Prud before April 17th, but this person was in Prud
18 after April 17th.
19 Q. Mr. Paradzik, this person is not a resident of the local commune
20 of Prud; is that correct?
21 A. Yes, he is not.
22 Q. Mr. Paradzik, you certainly know Badisa Nujic, Tadija Grgic, Pero
23 Majic, Pero Pepic, Mato Paradzik, Marko Vrljic, Ilija Mandzukic and
24 others; is that correct?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Are you aware of the fact that they were people who had certain
2 responsibility, commanding responsibilities in this unit, commanders of
3 platoons, of departments, and so on?
4 A. No, they did not.
5 Q. Could you please tell me the following: Did the persons called
6 Anto Masic, nicknamed Rus, Badisa Nujic, nicknamed Baja, Anto Sarcevic,
7 and Mato Majic, nicknamed Lulas, have the responsibility of duty service
8 in the local commune of Prud?
9 A. All the villagers of Prud had to do this duty service, not only
10 them. We all took our turns.
11 Q. We are now going to move to another topic, the events that took
12 place on the 16th and the 17th of April, 1992. In your statement, you
13 said that when you woke up and came to the centre of Prud, about 200
14 people gathered there with mainly hunting weapons and other kinds of
15 rifles. Do you remember this?
16 A. Not everybody had rifles.
17 Q. Well, those who did have them.
18 A. Well, I'm not certain about the number. The whole village came.
19 I can't tell you exactly who was present where, but the majority of people
20 were in the centre.
21 Q. Mr. Paradzik, the numbers don't matter.
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. My question is as follows: What did you mean when you said "other
24 kinds of rifles"? What other kinds did people have? Can you remember?
25 A. M-48, PAPs, and Kalashnikovs.
1 Q. I'd just like to clear something up. A PAP what is that? It's an
2 abbreviation. You and I can understand each other, but we should also
3 clear things up for the Chamber. What does this abbreviation PAP mean?
4 A. I don't know what it is. I just know that the rifle was known by
5 that name.
6 Q. Would you agree this is a semi-automatic rifle?
7 A. Yes, something like that.
8 Q. This rifle, this PAP rifle, this is a military kind of weapon, is
9 it not?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. On that morning when you gathered in the centre of Prud, you
12 handled, in accordance with the military plan that you had had from
13 before; is that correct?
14 A. No.
15 Q. All right. Could you tell us what activities were undertaken in
16 the local commune of Prud when about 200 people that you mentioned
18 A. Everybody was panicked and a decision had to be made what to do.
19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pisarevic, if we could look, please, to line
20 14 on page 13. The question says: "On what morning when you gathered in
21 the centre of Prud you handled" handled what? We've been talking about
22 PAPs and rifles and things before that. Can you clarify what your
23 question actually refers to, please? So that's page 13, lines 13 through
24 to 15.
25 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] The question was as follows: When
1 they gathered them in that morning, did they act in accordance with the
2 military plan? And your answer was: No.
3 A. Yes, that's correct. We did not.
4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you. It was the word "handled"
5 which raised a query.
6 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. Could you please tell me the following: You mentioned a person
8 called Namik Suljic. He is a Muslim by ethnicity, a member of the SDA; is
9 that correct?
10 A. Yes, he's a Muslim, but I don't know whether he was a member or
12 Q. He was the deputy of the commander in the police station in Samac;
13 is that correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. If you can remember, could you please tell me the following: How
16 many times during the night of the 17th of April, 1992 did he come to
18 A. Several times. He crossed the bridge several times and he went
19 back to Samac several times.
20 Q. Every time he crossed the bridge. You're referring to the bridge
21 on the River Bosna; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Would you agree that the bridge was free for crossing at that
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Could you tell me the following: When did Mr. Namik Suljic leave
2 the Motorola or the walkie-talkie with you?
3 A. Immediately that evening, that night. It might have been around
4 3.00. I'm not sure. After the shooting in Samac. That's when he came.
5 He was on the checkpoint.
6 Q. What checkpoint was he at?
7 A. I guess he was at the checkpoint on the bridge. I don't know.
8 Q. Did he leave the Motorola at the checkpoint on the bridge?
9 A. No. He left it in Prud.
10 Q. Could you please tell us the exact location where he left it?
11 A. At the cultural centre.
12 Q. Was this just one office in the centre where your command was
14 A. There was no such command. It was raining, and we were at the
16 Q. Can you remember how many people were in this office, in this room
17 at the centre?
18 A. I think more than 20. There was quite a few people there, and
19 this was taking place upstairs. There were people downstairs too.
20 Q. Did Mr. Suljic leave this Motorola to somebody specifically or did
21 he just leave it there?
22 A. He left it, but I don't know to whom.
23 Q. That morning, did you see Alija Fitozovic in Prud, a Muslim from
24 Samac, the deputy commander of the military units of HVO and SDA?
25 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Unless my memory serves me wrongly, the witness
3 hasn't said that he was the deputy commander of military units of the HVO
4 and SDA at all, so the question assumes that. I think the proper way to
5 approach the matter for Mr. Pisarevic would be to first ask whether or not
6 Alija Fitozovic was indeed the deputy commander of any military unit in
7 the HVO or SDA and then proceed to the next part of the question.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pisarevic.
9 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] I understood, Your Honours. This
10 is not a problem.
11 Q. Did you see Alija Fitozovic, a Muslim from Samac, in Prud?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. When did you see him?
14 A. After midnight.
15 Q. Please, after midnight is a long time span. Could you tell me
16 more precisely at what time did you see him?
17 A. After midnight on April 17th. The shooting had already started in
19 Q. Could you please tell me how long Mr. Fitozovic stayed in Prud?
20 Was he also at this social, cultural centre?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How long did he stay there?
23 A. Until the morning.
24 Q. Until the morning. Would you say it was 6.00 or 7.00 in the
1 A. 6.00 or 7.00.
2 Q. Did Alija Fitozovic have a Motorola or a walkie-talkie on him?
3 A. I didn't see it.
4 Q. Did you see Ibrahim Salkic, nicknamed Ibela, also in Prud at the
5 same time?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did Salkic have a Motorola?
8 A. I didn't see it.
9 Q. Until what time did Mr. Salkic stay in Prud?
10 A. I think up until the same time, maybe up until 6.00.
11 Q. Could you give us certain names who were -- who also heard the
12 name of Mr. -- the voice of Mr. Zaric in Prud?
13 A. Anto Petric, Mato Vidovic, Mato Grgic, Marko Barugdzic, Alija
14 Fitozovic. I think that's enough.
15 Q. This Motorola, this walkie-talkie, what do you know about its
16 technical characteristics?
17 A. I know very little about it.
18 Q. So you couldn't say what this Motorola or walkie-talkie was, its
19 type, or anything like that?
20 A. It's the same as what the police had. They called it Motorola.
21 Q. What was the quality of sound? Were there any interferences?
22 A. No, there was no interference.
23 Q. So let's conclude. This Motorola is not a radio; is that correct?
24 A. No, it's not a radio.
25 Q. Mr. Paradzik, as far as I know, you are not an expert in voice
1 recognition; is that correct?
2 A. Well, I really don't know who could be an expert in that.
3 Q. Well, I asked you if you were one.
4 A. I'm not.
5 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that the passwords in the Samac
6 police were "sea" and "seagull"?
7 A. No.
8 Q. In the statement, you said that citizens started crossing from
9 3.00 a.m. on the 17th of April, 1992, up until 2.00 p.m. on the same day.
10 Is that correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. We have a piece of information that in that time frame 10.000
13 citizens of Samac -- 1.000?
14 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter correction. 1.000 citizens of Samac
15 of Muslim and Croat ethnicity left Samac to Prud.
16 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Is that information correct?
18 A. I'm not sure how many people crossed the bridge.
19 Q. What is your personal estimate? How many people crossed over?
20 A. I don't. Whoever crossed over went immediately to the Republic of
22 Q. So you wouldn't be able to give your personal estimate? A couple
24 A. Well, I really don't. I wasn't there the whole time. I didn't
25 see everybody who crossed over.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pisarevic, your 30 minutes is over.
2 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Just five more minutes and then
3 I'll be finished.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
5 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. From the location where you were at in Prud, the bridge on the
7 River Bosna cannot be seen; is that correct?
8 A. I was near the bridge.
9 Q. Were you in the centre?
10 A. At that time I was in the centre. I was not at the bridge at
12 Q. Do you know whether anybody was hurt while crossing the bridge,
13 whether anybody was hurt by weapon fire?
14 A. During the night, nobody was hurt.
15 Q. Was anybody killed?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Do you remember that on the 17th of April, 1992, in the evening
18 hours, your unit from Prud tried to attack Samac across the bridge and
19 three members of this unit were killed? Do you remember this incident?
20 A. There was never any attack attempted against Samac.
21 Q. Are you aware of the fact that three members of your military unit
22 were killed on the bridge, on the River Bosna, between your local commune
23 and the city of Samac?
24 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, the use of the expression
25 "your military unit" is troubling. I don't recall this witness saying
1 that he was part of any military unit. I think he said he was part of the
2 self-defence for the town.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: If that's what Mr. Pisarevic means, then let him
5 specify that in the question to the witness, but I don't think the witness
6 has said he's part of any military unit.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pisarevic.
8 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if I understood
9 correctly what the witness said, he said that from the 17th onward there
10 was a military unit on the local commune of Prud under the command of Mijo
11 Masic, nicknamed Mis, or "Mouse," and I said that this was on the 17th of
12 April, in the evening.
13 Q. Was anybody killed? Do you know if anybody was killed on the 17th
14 of April, in the evening hours, on the bridge crossing the River Bosna?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. These people that were killed, they were not residents of Prud; is
17 that correct?
18 A. I have a correction to make. I am not sure that this happened on
19 the 17th of April.
20 Q. We have some facts showing that it happened on the 17th of April,
21 but it's a fact that certain persons were killed there; is that correct?
22 Where were these people from?
23 A. They weren't from Prud. I don't know where they were from.
24 Q. Were they maybe from the Republic of Croatia?
25 A. I'm not sure. At that time, people were arriving from all sides.
1 I'm not sure where they were from.
2 Q. Were the killed persons wearing uniforms?
3 A. I didn't see any.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't want to stop
5 Mr. Pisarevic from this line of questioning, but I fear that we may end up
6 with a situation where both Mr. Pisarevic and the witness are talking
7 about separate episodes. Mr. Pisarevic, I think, from looking at the
8 transcript, is referring to an episode that he alleges, or his
9 instructions are, took place on the 17th of April. The witness is talking
10 about people being killed on the bridge, but he doesn't think it was the
11 17th of April. So we might end up with Mr. Pisarevic talking about one
12 incident and the witness talking about another. So I think that it should
13 be clarified in the transcript; otherwise, once again, it's of no benefit
14 to you, and for that matter, Mr. Pisarevic, because he can't make use of
15 it at a later stage. So I suggest the matter be clarified so that it's
16 clear that both -- the witness clearly understands what Mr. Pisarevic is
17 referring to.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pisarevic. You've understood what
19 Mr. Di Fazio has said.
20 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] I have, Your Honours. Thank you.
21 Q. If this incident didn't happen on the 17th, could it have been on
22 the 18th or immediately after the 17th?
23 A. I don't know the date. I know some people got killed. I can't
24 really tell you where they were from.
25 Q. It was the 17th or the 18th or the 19th. I'm not insisting. But
1 was it immediately after the 17th?
2 A. It was certainly after the 17th. I can't tell you the date.
3 Q. Was it a day or two or three after the 17th?
4 A. I don't remember.
5 Q. Thank you. I've got just a couple of more questions and we'll be
7 The locals of Struke, this hamlet in your local commune of Prud,
8 left their houses at a certain point. They were immediately set on fire
9 after they were abandoned, weren't they?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Did you, prior to early July, go to Trnjak or Dubica, and Struke?
12 A. No, I didn't.
13 Q. When did the military operation corridor take place? It was in
14 July, wasn't it? The order on the evacuation of Croat citizens from the
15 municipality of Odzak and the local commune of Prud was issued by the
16 command of the 102nd Brigade of the HVO, based in Odzak; is that correct?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. According to your own statement, it was the time when you left for
19 Croatia, wasn't it?
20 A. Yes, it was.
21 Q. Who accompanied you? Who left together with you?
22 A. All the inhabitants of Prud.
23 Q. Do you have any knowledge about the residents of other villages in
24 Odzak? Did they also leave for Croatia?
25 A. They did.
1 Q. So if I understood you correctly, nobody stayed behind on the
2 territory of Odzak municipality, no Muslims or Croats.
3 A. I don't know about other places. I know that three men remained
4 in Prud.
5 Q. Just one more thing. Is my information correct that not a single
6 citizen of Prud was killed during the war operations in the Republic of
8 A. It is.
9 Q. Just one final question. Before you came to testify in The Hague,
10 did you talk to Dragan Lukac?
11 A. No.
12 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I have no further
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
15 The Prosecution, re-examination?
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you, Your Honours. Just two very brief
18 Re-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:
19 Q. Witness, you said that, this afternoon, that the bridge was free
20 when Namik Suljic crossed it. I want to know what you meant by that. Do
21 you mean that it was free of obstruction and impediment or was it free of
22 anyone trying -- by that I mean physical obstruction or impediment, or was
23 it free of anyone shooting at it, free of anyone trying to stop people
24 from crossing it? Do you understand what I mean?
25 A. At that time, the bridge had not been occupied, had not been taken
1 over yet, but intermittent fire was opened at it.
2 Q. Was intermittent fire opened at it during the times that this Mr.
3 Suljic was crossing over, or going back and forth?
4 A. I wasn't on the bridge when Namik crossed it, and I really don't
6 Q. Thanks. You also said that no one was hurt during the night
7 crossing the bridge. Was anyone hurt during the day crossing the bridge?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Who was hurt, and how were they hurt, as far as you're aware?
10 A. Seven our young men were injured. They were on the bridge
11 receiving incoming civilians, and they were hit by a mortar shell.
12 Q. These young men from the village of -- the town of Prud?
13 A. Yes, from Prud village.
14 Q. Yes. Thank you.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: I have no further re-examination.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you very much for giving evidence to the
17 Tribunal. You are now free. You can leave the courtroom.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Any other witness?
20 MR. DI FAZIO: No, Your Honours. Yesterday, as you know, I
21 discussed with you what I hoped would be arrangements for Mr. Ibro
22 Taletovic to give evidence today and become part heard in the case.
23 Yesterday and this morning, Mr. Weiner was engaged in proofing the
24 witness. This morning he told us, the Prosecutors in the case, that he
25 did not feel able to testify in the case at all. He felt that he was
1 physically and mentally unable to give evidence. I ask you to bear in
2 mind that he endured a harrowing episode. He was a survivor of the
3 massacre, mass murder, call it what you will, at Crkvina, and simply felt
4 that he couldn't provide any evidence. On that basis, and on that basis
5 alone, the Prosecution would not be minded to call him. However, having
6 also proofed him, it became clear that there was not much that he could
7 offer the Chamber by way of evidence that another witness could not offer
8 in any event, another gentleman who we intend to call to give evidence and
9 who can provide an account of the events at Crkvina.
10 Bearing in mind all of those matters, the Prosecution has decided
11 it will not call him to give evidence. Regrettably, we don't have any
12 other witness that we can slot in at short notice. The only person that
13 we could have done that with is Ewa Tabeau, and as I told you last week,
14 she is on mission and not available at the moment. And the next witness
15 is not flying in until tomorrow. So the situation has arisen, I'm sorry
16 to say, that whereby we can't produce any further witnesses for the
17 remainder of the afternoon.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
19 Any matters from the Defence? Yes, Mr. Lukic.
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If there are no other issues to be
21 discussed, I would like to avail myself of the opportunity to tender three
22 documents of which I got official translations. Since we have spare time
23 now, apparently, perhaps we could introduce them into evidence now.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] The first document that I would like
1 to tender, along with an official translation, is D1/3 ter ID. It has
2 been introduced by the OTP as P5, and it's a decision on the strategic
3 objectives of the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. On the 12th
4 of September, 2002, [As interpreted] I disputed the translation provided
5 by the Prosecution, saying that the date of the promulgation of this
6 decision in the Official Gazette of Republika Srpska should be included in
7 the translation too, and this document is now being introduced as D1/3
9 And I have now got a complete translation, including the date of
10 its publishing in the Official Gazette. I have prepared for the Trial
11 Chamber also document P5, translated, and the new complete translation
12 given me by the CLSS.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, would you just give the
14 Prosecution a moment to look at this document? There probably won't be
15 any objection, but --
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can look at it.
17 [Prosecution counsel confer]
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I don't have any objection,
22 but I can't really see any difference at all between the document that is
23 already in evidence as an ID and this translation. But I don't know -- my
24 learned friend says that there was no date. The original D1/3 ID had the
25 date on it clearly marked, 12th of May.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. What was the difference?
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That was precisely my objection. It
3 was not a question of when the decision was made, but when it was
4 published. And in this translation that we've got now, we can see that
5 the decision was published in the Official Gazette of Republika Srpska on
6 the 26th November 1993, which is two and a half years after the adoption
7 of the decision.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. I understand my learned friend's
9 point. I regret that I didn't immediately grasp it, and on that basis,
10 I've got no problem.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can we have the number? It's an Exhibit
13 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It will be D1/3 for the
14 English translation and D1/3 ter for the exhibit in B/C/S. Thank you.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] My next document is one which we
16 introduced in the B/C/S version under an identification number during the
17 testimony of Kemal Mehinovic, and that is the decision on the assignment
18 of court-appointed counsel. I've got an official translation now. It's
19 D39/3 ter ID.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: Again, may I just see that document briefly?
21 No objection, if Your Honours please.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number, please, as an exhibit?
23 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours. It will retain the same
24 number, D39/3 for the English translation, and D39/3 ter. Thank you.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] And one more document. On the same
1 day, another document was introduced through the same witness, D40/3 ter
2 ID. It is an enactment of the Batkovici centre, addressed to the military
3 court in Bijeljina, identifying the detainees currently held in Batkovici,
4 and the date of the document is 18 February 1993.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The usher can assist. Can the usher assist to
6 get the documents distributed?
7 Yes. Can we have the number, please?
8 MR. WEINER: Excuse me. Does counsel, in B/C/S, have the second
9 page of this one?
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have only this. The B/C/S version
11 has only one page.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: How come -- then where did this page come from on
13 the translation, or is it that all the names could fit on one page in the
14 B/C/S version?
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I believe it's the format of the
16 translation. The spacing is such that the English translation took up two
17 pages. There is only one in the B/C/S version.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: No, I don't think that can be right, if Your
19 Honours please. As my colleague and I compare the document, the B/C/S
20 version, the first part, so to speak, ends on number 22, Pasaga Tihic.
21 Then there's another list that goes to Esad Kosic, and then there's 8,
22 ending on somebody Galeb. And you can see that on the second page of
23 the English, and then there's a whole list of extra names on the English,
24 and we don't have the rest of the B/C/S.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. So what copy was given to the translation?
1 Because they must have got it from the B/C/S.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I submitted a one-page document, which
3 I tendered into evidence. I'm not aware of the existence of any other
4 version. I have to check this, because I don't have the copy I submitted
5 to the CLSS now.
6 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Lukic, I think also what we have here, apart
7 from the additional names, of course, we also have the name of the
8 commander, a Doko Pajic, and a signature on the translation, so it
9 seems to be of some importance from that perspective.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think you need to clear these --
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] If my learned friends from the
12 Prosecution will let me have a copy.
13 I will have to compare this to the document that I had submitted
14 to the CLSS. If this is true, it's probably the case that I didn't give
15 the entire document to the OTP. It's probably why Ms. Reidy told me that
16 she would have to give me approval in due course, because there is no
17 indication of who signed it. It was originally identified as D40/3 ter
18 ID. Let us keep the identification number for now, if the Trial Chamber
19 agrees, and the OTP as well, until I have a chance to verify.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will retain the D40/3 ter ID, which we
21 already have, and then the translation you will have to verify
22 with -- find out from the Translation Unit. -- clearly to be a different
24 Mr. Weiner?
25 MR. WEINER: No. I was just getting up to speak on behalf of
1 Attorney Reidy on this document, but there's no need. Thank you.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic.
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honours. I have two brief matters
4 to raise before the Trial Chamber.
5 The first issue is strictly related to the Defence of Mr. Zaric.
6 We were recently informed by our colleagues from the Prosecutor, and the
7 Bench is also aware of that fact, that they do not intend to call Mr. Omer
8 Nalic, who was on their list of witnesses. And first, I would like to ask
9 if this is their final position; and if so, we would like to ask for
10 permission of the Bench to approach this witness, because possibly this
11 could be a witness of interest for Mr. Zaric's defence.
12 His statement was disclosed to us as part of disclosure, and
13 there are some portions of this statement that we consider exculpatory,
14 possibly exculpatory for Mr. Zaric, and we are interested in possibly
15 calling this witness as a Defence witness. So first I would like to know
16 from our colleagues from the Prosecution if they're still on the same
17 position, they won't call Mr. Nalic as their witness.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Our position remains the same. He won't be called
20 as a Prosecution witness.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: That's Mr. Omer --?
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Omer Nalic.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Nalic.
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Well, in that case, I would like the permission of
25 the Trial Chamber to approach this witness and possibly take a statement
1 from him and --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Call him as a Defence witness?
3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think the Defence can go ahead and approach
5 the witness, since he's no longer on the list of Prosecution witnesses, so
6 he remains available.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Of course, there's no property in witnesses,
8 and the Defence are perfectly free to do that, but I assume they don't
9 have the wherewithal to -- they don't know how to get in touch with him,
10 and I assume they'll have to go through us to try and approach him, and I
11 assume that that's what is being sought at the moment.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, I see. I thought it was just permission. I
13 thought they knew how to get hold of him.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I assume not. I assume not. I'd be very
15 surprised if they did have contact with him.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Then the Trial Chamber can expect that the
17 Prosecution will cooperate?
18 MR. DI FAZIO: We will -- not in the sense of simply handing out
19 the address, but we will certainly be more than happy to act as an
20 intermediary and convey the desire of the Defence to speak to him, to Mr.
21 Nalic, and from there on it's up to Mr. Nalic to do whatever he wishes.
22 There are lots of ways of doing that. I suppose if the Defence gave us a
23 letter, we could undertake to post it to Mr. Nalic or -- anyway, there
24 are practical ways of doing so, and I think --
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think the Trial Chamber will leave it to the
1 parties to deal with the matter. Yes. If there will be any problems,
2 then --
3 MR. DI FAZIO: We can refer the matter to Chamber.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it can be referred to the Chamber.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: But I think that would be a far more practical
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: Thank you, Your Honours.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
9 MR. LAZAREVIC: That was my understanding, actually just to ask
10 first from the Trial Chamber for permission to approach. It was a
11 Prosecution witness, and of course we wanted to handle this in the proper
12 way. We will cooperate with our colleagues in this respect and do
13 everything we can to do it properly.
14 The other issue is on behalf of all Defence counsel I would like
15 to raise. And during the testimony of previous witness Ms. Drljacic,
16 Hajrija, it appeared that this witness gave her statements or - I don't
17 know - it was an interview or what it was, to Yves Roy, the investigator
18 of the Prosecution. Since we do not have in our records and in our files
19 any sort of statement or informal interview or proofing notes or anything
20 like that that was -- that could indicate that it was done by Mr. Yves
21 Roy, we are now in a position to ask our colleagues if such statement
22 exists, and if it does, why it wasn't disclosed to the Defence.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I'm sure the Prosecution can answer that.
24 MR. WEINER: Yes. In her testimony, she said she talked, not gave
25 a statement, not signed anything, didn't give any -- provide any written
1 materials. She talked to Yves Roy. Yves Roy is not only the
2 investigator, but he's kind of the liaison to the witnesses on behalf of
3 the attorneys. He talks to some of these people on a regular basis: How
4 are you? How are you feeling? We just want you to know you're going to
5 be coming up to testify in two months, in three months. You're going to
6 be coming up to testify at the end of the year. He calls to say hello,
7 lets them know the trial is still continuing, we will get to you. They
8 call him to see when they're coming. He talks to these people on a
9 regular basis. He maintains contact. Some of these people -- no one has
10 talked to him other than -- talked to them other than taking a statement
11 eight to ten -- eight years ago. It's Mr. Roy who stays in touch with
12 them, finds out their new addresses, how to stay in -- how to get hold of
13 them if they have to. These people, some of them move around from one
14 location to another. They talk to him. It doesn't mean he's sitting down
15 taking an official statement, as listed under the Rules. They have
16 received a copy of the interview, the informal interview, which was taken
17 from that witness. They received verbal information from me prior to
18 testifying as to what exactly this witness said, what additional detail,
19 and they've received a written statement as to the detail which was taken
20 by me.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
22 MR. WEINER: And that's what's available and what exists.
23 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours. This is exactly what we would
24 like to find out. Does the Prosecutor have any other statement, informal
25 statement, proofing notes, investigator notes, regarding Witness Drljacic
1 Hajrija. This is the only question that we would like to know.
2 MR. WEINER: There are no statements. I have never seen any
3 statement taken by Yves Roy relating to this witness. There is no
4 informal interview taken by Yves Roy relating to this witness. The only
5 thing I'm aware of are two things: Number one, the informal interview that
6 she gave some years ago and the interview or the proofing session which I
7 took and which I have provided an oral statement to each of the Defence
8 counsel and a written statement to Defence counsel, which was hand
9 delivered by Mr. Lese our trial manager, last week. Thank you.
10 MR. LAZAREVIC: I can confirm these two documents, informal
11 statement and Mr. Weiner's proofing notes we have received. We just
12 wanted to find out if there was anything else. Because there were some
13 indication during the testimony of the witness that she allegedly signed
14 something or she gave an interview to Mr. Yves Roy, so we were just --
15 maybe -- I don't know.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but the explanation Mr. Weiner has given is
17 sufficient, and you could have pursued that with the witness herself when
18 she made those remarks or she gave that type of evidence. Because now
19 it's over. And the Prosecution has given an explanation as to how Mr. Roy
20 talks to witnesses, including to this particular witness, over a period
21 before they actually come to testify.
22 Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Maybe I can assist the Trial Chamber. As far as I
24 remember, Your Honours, this, I would say, topic or issue was practically
25 raised and we found --
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe we're going beyond the break time. Can we
2 have a break and then come back?
3 MR. PANTELIC: No, no. I think it's just a few words, Your
4 Honour, and then we are finished for today.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the interpreters are overworked.
6 MR. PANTELIC: You're right. Okay. Because my colleague has
7 something after the break. Sorry, Your Honour.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have a break and continue at 1620
10 --- Recess taken at 3.49 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 4.20 p.m.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, you were making some submissions.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. My understanding was that --
14 yes. Your words, Madam President, were, page 34, line 14, today: "Yes,
15 but the explanation of Mr. Weiner has given is sufficient, and you could
16 have pursued that with the witness herself when she made those remarks or
17 she gave that type of evidence, because now it's over."
18 I checked the transcripts. It's page 8196, on Tuesday, 21st of
19 May this year. In fact, my colleague Pisarevic, during his
20 cross-examination, came to the fact that witness mentioned Mr. Roy, and it
21 was on this page 8196, line 9. The answer was: "Please, excuse me. I
22 talked to Mr. Roy." Then the question was: "But when was that? Could
23 you tell us?" And so on. Then the other question on line 12 was:
24 "Ma'am, everything matters to us. This business is too important for any
25 unclarities. Did Mr. Roy reread the statement to you?" The answer was:
1 "I don't remember, but if I signed it, then my signature is still there,
2 and I'm not avoiding anything."
3 And then in re-examination, that was the page 8204, conducted by
4 Mr. Weiner, the question was -- his question was: "Okay. No problem. But
5 when you spoke with that lady, did you speak to her in person? Was she
6 sitting with you or did you speak to her over a telephone?" The answer of
7 witness was: I know that I talked both on telephone as well. I didn't
8 talk to a woman in person in Salt Lake City at all. I only talked to
9 Mr. Roy. That's how I pronounce his name."
10 And therefore, we were not able to go into this matter, because it
11 was finished in re-examination, and then now we kindly ask from our
12 learned friends to clarify this issue, point number one, whether they are
13 in possession of any signed statement by the witness Hajrija Drljacic, in
14 the presence of Mr. Yves Roy or not.
15 Point number 2: Is there any information with regard of the, I
16 would say, official contacts within the standards of statements that we
17 are speaking here with Mr. Roy, simple as that. Nothing more. It's not a
18 big matter for us. Just for the record. Thank you.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
20 Mr. Weiner?
21 MR. WEINER: Once again, the same thing. You're mixing apples and
22 oranges. When they talk about the statement to the woman, they're talking
23 about the informal interview, which was presented to them I don't know how
24 many years ago. There's that. I won't call it a statement. It's an
25 informal interview document of several pages. They have that. They have
1 my notes of my summary as a Prosecutor, speaking to the woman, as we
2 prepare for trial, which the way I read the Rules, it is not
3 discoverable. I turn it over as a matter of fairness so people can't say
4 you're ambushing them or it's not being fair that we're not getting the
5 latest information. I turn it over. Those are the statements. Does
6 Mr. Roy talks to the witness? Yes. Who do you think contacts the
7 witnesses? Who do you think has to make sure that they have passports,
8 that they have papers? Who do you think has to make sure that they're
9 going to be coming here, who stays in touch with them, tells them get
10 ready, it's a month away. They speak to Mr. Roy a lot. Is Mr. Roy out
11 there taking statements? No. Not as long as I've been here.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber doesn't see any problem at
13 all from the quotations of the transcript by Mr. Pantelic from the
14 explanation by the Prosecution. It's a non-issue, actually.
15 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll go into closed session, or private session,
17 since we don't have to take down the blinds.
18 [Private session]
12 Pages 8333-8337 – redacted – private session
5 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.34 p.m.,
6 to be reconvened on Monday, the 27th day of May,
7 2002, at 2.15 p.m.