1 Tuesday, 4 June 2002
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 [The witness entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 9.00 a.m.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Case number
8 IT-95-9-T, the Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic and
9 Simo Zaric.
10 WITNESS: ALIJA FITOZOVIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, you are cross-examining.
13 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honours.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Pantelic: [Continued]
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Fitozovic.
16 A. Good morning.
17 MR. PANTELIC: I want to tender some paper so this witness can
18 give us certain explanations. Mr. Usher, please. It's a kind of receipt
19 for the ammunition. That's my understanding. I have this piece of paper;
20 it's the original here. Please, could we have an ID number for a moment?
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, can we have the number?
22 THE REGISTRAR: It will be D38/1, Your Honours. Thank you.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Have we seen it before? Or it's a new one, so it
24 should be numbered for identification.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, I think it should also go as
1 ter. I'm not sure. Maybe Mr. Pantelic could explain whether it needs to
2 be translated or not.
3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
4 THE REGISTRAR: So D38/1 ter ID.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, I have the original for the witness.
7 You can put one of the copies on the ELMO so that we can follow.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: It has three pages, Mr. Pantelic?
9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. I think the other pages are not so relevant
10 to this particular page.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: So what is the original? The original is only the
12 first page, is it?
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, only the first page.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: So we remove these attachments?
15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Okay. So it's only one page.
17 MR. PANTELIC:
18 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, do you recognise this paper?
19 A. Yes, I recognise it.
20 Q. Is this a list of your armed unit which had received ammunition?
21 And the first column, we have a clip, then we have penetrating bullets and
22 tracer bullets. And below, the calculations of how many bullets, rounds,
23 have been distributed, and what still remains.
24 When did this document -- when it was it produced?
25 A. In March.
1 Q. Which year?
2 A. 1992.
3 Q. Under number 15, what is the name?
4 A. Tihic Sulejman.
5 Q. Under number 8?
6 A. Fitozovic Alija.
7 Q. What kind of bullets are penetration bullets?
8 A. They are penetration bullets, penetrating the flak jackets, and
9 also defensive facilities and also flak jackets.
10 Q. Therefore, these are not the normal bullets?
11 A. They are not some type of special bullets.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, I have finished with this document.
13 If there is no objection from the Prosecution side, I would like this
14 document to be tendered into the evidence, please.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution?
16 MR. WEINER: No objection. Has counsel begun the translation
18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. A few of these documents are under
19 translation process.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: So we wait for translation, Mr. Weiner?
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Maybe that would be a good idea until the
22 official translation is in, then we shall get the number.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. I agree, ID for now.
25 Mr. Usher, you can take this document in front of the witness and
1 provide it to the registry. Mr. Usher, please, I'm sorry, I have a few
2 documents here.
3 The next document is two-page document. It's a kind of patrols or
4 groups who are patrolling. It's also B/C/S version. It's original, front
5 and back side document. This is for the witness.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number for identification purposes?
7 THE REGISTRAR: It is D39/1 ter ID, Your Honours.
8 MR. PANTELIC: May I proceed, Your Honours?
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
10 MR. WEINER: One moment.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Well, Mr. Weiner?
12 MR. WEINER: I never received the second page of this document.
13 MR. PANTELIC: I will check with my co-counsel to see whether it
14 was -- well, maybe it's misunderstanding but my co-counsel confirms that
15 he gave these two pages, but in any case --
16 MR. WEINER: I have the three documents here that you provided me.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Listen, I agree that maybe it's our mistake.
18 Please. Document speaks for itself. It's a patrol so we can easily pass
19 through this.
20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, is this the same as what happened
21 yesterday, then, that is the original one sheet of paper with writing on
22 both sides?
23 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: So that was exactly the same thing that happened
25 yesterday, that the photocopy, obviously, therefore is two pages, and Mr.
1 Weiner can correct me if my recollection is not correct, but he only
2 had the first page, likewise. So maybe we should be careful when we are
3 duplicating these documents, which is a one-page original, that we make
4 sure from both sides, both the Prosecution and the Defence, that we make
5 sure that the copies are correct.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honours. I agree because we
7 already made these practically two copies of one documents and during this
8 photocopy process, maybe the problem arose, but I do apologise on behalf
9 of my team.
10 MR. WEINER: No problem. He can continue. I just needed a minute
11 to look at it.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead, Mr. Pantelic.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.
14 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, this document which we have on the
15 ELMO now, as I understand it, these are patrol groups?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. When did this -- when was this document produced?
18 A. The document was produced either in October or November, when the
19 patrols already existed.
20 Q. Can you tell us which year?
21 A. In 1991.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, could we have the second page of the
23 document on the ELMO?
24 Q. [Interpretation] Please look at the second page of the document in
25 front of you. Turn the page. I assume that this is also -- these are
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. But explain to the Court what is this P1, P2, P3?
4 A. It means Patrol 1, Patrol 2, Patrol 3. That is what it means.
5 Q. Please turn back to the first page. And who is in Patrol 11?
6 A. Ibralic, Enver, Dago Dagovic, the waiter, and Gazibegovic, Nijaz.
7 Q. This waiter, what is his name, please?
8 A. Well, his nickname is Ekac but Ekac -- it may be Esad, I don't
9 know. If I had known the name, I'd probably have written it down and
10 instead I put in a "waiter."
11 Q. Was he a waiter in a Pizza Hut?
12 A. Well, that was that Dagovic. There was one Dagovic, waiter. I
13 believe that he was also known as Ekac.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Fitozovic.
15 MR. PANTELIC: I finished with this.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: We already have an ID number.
17 MR. PANTELIC: Sorry.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: The only thing I want to specify is that the
19 original document of D39/1 ter is written on both sides.
20 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: And then the photocopies are the ones which are two
22 pages, so the original should be page 1; page 2, the back side, so that we
23 don't have confusion on the record.
24 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct. This is the -- there is English
25 translation here. This is the excerpts from the municipality statute from
1 1986, I believe, with some amendments in 1990. There is an ERN number.
2 OTP number is 00485202. I would like to discuss one article with this
3 witness. Not discuss, just to check. This is Article 336. And this of
4 course, document, were mutually disclosed between parties during
5 proceedings. And there is official English translation of this Article
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the numbers? We have the translation.
8 This is out of the statute, Mr. Pantelic?
9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. In fact, if there is no objection from my
10 friends from the Prosecution, maybe we could have exhibit number. This is
11 the Article of 336 of the municipality statute of Bosanski Samac with ERN
12 number, OTP number.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner?
14 MR. WEINER: No objection.
15 THE REGISTRAR: It will be D40/1 ter, and D40/1, Your Honours.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can go ahead.
17 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
18 Q. Mr. Fitozovic, Article 336 is from the municipal statute. Could
19 you read out the second paragraph?
20 A. Mr. Pantelic, I'm not sure that this applies to Bosanski Samac. I
21 believe that this is some excerpt from a law text, and as I'm not a legal
22 person, I really couldn't answer that question.
23 Q. As this is a Prosecution document and that we have determined
24 that it is the municipal statute, I will ask you directly, then. Are you
25 aware that the commander of the TO is appointed through the assembly
1 decision; yes or no?
2 A. Mr. Pantelic, I was appointed as a Chief of Staff on -- and
3 appointed by the Presidency and the government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
4 So probably it is an old, obsolete statute or law, and there was the new
5 Territorial Defence was set up with also a new law was adopted. That is
6 as far as I can interpret it.
7 Q. I'm asking you this, Mr. Fitozovic, because through
8 Sulejman Tihic's testimony, who was an SDA official --
9 JUDGE MUMBA: All right, Mr. Weiner?
10 MR. WEINER: I had a feeling I was going to be objecting. This is
11 not the witness to ask questions about statutory interpretation.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
13 MR. PANTELIC: It's not my idea.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: I was wondering how far we were going to go with
15 this because this is a matter --
16 MR. PANTELIC: Directly, Your Honour, without any explanations. I
17 thought just maybe he was familiar with these provisions. If not, my next
18 question is:
19 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Sulejman Tihic said that SDA and HDZ outvoted
20 SDA and appointed you to your post. Do you agree with that?
21 A. No.
22 MR. WEINER: I'd object, and I don't think we should be commenting
23 on Sulejman -- this witness should be commenting on Sulejman Tihic's
25 MR. PANTELIC: According to the -- if I may, Your Honours,
1 according to the clear instructions and position of this Trial Chamber, it
2 is possible to put to one witness in summary form what the other witness
3 in these same proceedings said, having in mind that these are all OTP
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but I think it's the way you have phrased the
6 question. That's the problem.
7 MR. PANTELIC: I can phrase question, for example: "Are you aware
8 that there is evidence with regard to such and such thing?" Maybe I try
9 to help with this.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Because your question was: "Mr. Sulejman Tihic said
11 blah, blah, blah," and that is the reason why there is an objection.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. I will try to rephrase my question.
13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Also, Mr. Pantelic, just for the sake of clarity,
14 I wouldn't mind if you could refer me back in the transcript to where the
15 Trial Chamber made these clear instructions that you talk about on this
16 particular issue, because I can't recollect that. You don't need to do
17 that right now but I would appreciate it if I could have that information
18 at some point.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. I already made the
20 citation yesterday prior to my cross-examination. It's 18 of October,
21 page 2524 and 2525. And then 7th of November, I believe, when Mr. Tihic
22 was here, and the page about this approach, explanation, 3644 and 3645.
23 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner?
25 MR. WEINER: I would just respond with: Earlier in this witness's
1 testimony, this Court refused to allow him to comment on the testimony of
2 other witnesses as a consistent policy, and I noticed during the
3 cross-examination by Mr. Pantelic of Izet Izetbegovic, they tried to
4 question him on October 19th, at page 33, concerning questions -- I'm
5 sorry, concerning statements made by Sulejman Tihic, and at that time,
6 this Court sustained the issue and this Court has consistently sustained
7 the issue. There are, at times, ways that one can do that and there might
8 have been an issue on one occasion where they did allow such testimony to
9 come in. However, consistently, this Court has not allowed one witness to
10 comment on the credibility of another witness or comment upon the
11 statements of another witness, which follows the systems pretty much
12 throughout the world.
13 MR. PANTELIC: May I just give a quotation, Your Honours? Page
14 3645. You, as a Presiding Judge, said about the form of the possible
15 questions: You simply say to him - I'm quoting you - there is evidence to
16 the effect that -- and what or what do you say to that? All right. And
17 then it is in the closing arguments, then we now pick it up right, the
18 contradiction, and use them to water down the Prosecution case, et cetera.
19 So briefly, I mean, we have instructions here from 7th of November last
20 year. So I don't see any problem.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner?
22 MR. WEINER: His statement that you said correct, in the closing
23 statement you say this or that, that's where you argue this. You said
24 this witness said this, this witness said that, you as fact finders, you
25 determine the credibility. However, asking this witness to comment upon
1 what Sulejman Tihic said in his book or what Izet Izetbegovic said on
2 the stand, that can't be done. It's for the attorneys during our final
3 submissions to do that.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And the Trial Chamber will --
5 MR. PANTELIC: Along the same track.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no. There is a difference. You can see
7 from the quotation you have made. I think from now on -- let's settle
8 this point. You don't quote the evidence of another witness and ask the
9 witness in the box to comment. All right?
10 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: I think that is much clearer and I hope this is the
12 last time we are discussing this problem.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Okay, Your Honours. Mr. Usher, we can have this
14 excerpt from the statute, please. I don't need it in front of the
16 Next document that I have, it's a one-page document. My
17 understanding, it's kind of specification of -- and schedule for
18 patrolling and the duties on the roadblock, something like that.
19 Mr. Usher, I have original in front of the witness. And put one
20 copy on the ELMO. Could we have ID, please?
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
22 MR. PANTELIC: ID number?
23 THE REGISTRAR: It will be D41/1 ter ID. Thank you.
24 MR. PANTELIC:
25 Q. [Interpretation] When, Mr. Fitozovic, when did this schedule, this
1 timetable for duty -- when was it drafted?
2 A. Either in the month of October or November, 1991.
3 Q. Thank you. What is the title, the heading, of the document?
4 A. It is the timetable of duty at the points and patrols.
5 Q. Could you tell us what are the points, the checkpoints?
6 A. I already explained that one was at the eastern part of the city,
7 where one enters the Muslim and Catholic area, and at the exit point near
8 the hospital.
9 Q. My understanding, the first checkpoint was at the veterinary
10 station, that is point number 1. Let me just see how you came to that
12 A. Yes, yes. Yes, that's right.
13 Q. And the second point is near the hospital, correct?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Who signed the document?
16 A. I signed it.
17 Q. In your capacity of committee for security?
18 A. Security committee.
19 Q. SDA Security Commission?
20 A. There is no stamp of SDA. It doesn't say SDA. Let me say that
21 these timetables for the checkpoints existed for duty at checkpoints from
22 the October or November. And it's something that has been looted from my
23 apartment. And it was carried out from the October or November of 1991,
24 up until the beginning of aggression. And this is a document referring to
25 the 17th of March to the 13th of April.
1 Q. However, my question was: Whose commission was that you were
3 A. True, I was the president of this commission and I explained it to
4 you what commission. And what I didn't say, you can see here in the
5 comment here, the composition of groups can be found with the secretary of
6 SDA and can be looked at from 8.00 to 2.00 p.m. This lady who worked at
7 the SDA, worked professionally, and she had these office hours. These
8 office hours. And I used her premises for working on such documents, such
10 Q. I'm asking for the third time: Were you the President of the
11 commission, SDA Security Commission, yes or no, Mr. Fitozovic?
12 A. Mr. Pantelic, I am answering the eighth time. I am answering yes,
13 I was the President of the Security Commission.
14 Q. My conclusion is that the SDA, in connection with the patrols and
15 these activities, had a certain type of coordination.
16 A. No, that's not the right conclusion, the one that you reached,
17 Mr. Pantelic.
18 Q. Thank you, let's move on.
19 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, I'm just wondering whether it's --
20 the translation, but "had a certain type of coordination"? I'm sort of
21 uncertain what you meant by that and therefore -- obviously, the witness
22 understood what you meant because he said: "No, that's not the right
23 conclusion." But what was it you were talking about?
24 MR. PANTELIC: My question -- I can make another question with
25 that regard.
1 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Or you can just answer me directly. What did you
3 MR. PANTELIC: What is the influence of the party SDA in this
4 organisation of patrols and, you know, kind of surveillance or whatever,
5 the reason for this patrolling was, what is the link between the party SDA
6 and -- I will to clarify transcript.
7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Well, it's fine. Now I understand what you
8 meant, and you can say that and ask the witness again, if you like.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.
10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, could we agree with the fact that
11 SDA in Samac, militarily and otherwise, organised its patrols and other
12 units in the period from October, 1991 to April, 1992, yes or no?
13 A. No, Mr. Pantelic. The SDA party and the political leadership of
14 the party did not have any influence on the creation of the patrols, the
15 gathering of people, that were members of these patrols. I have already
16 said a lot about this, and I do hope that I will have an opportunity to
17 say more things about this. So what are you interested in, in a concrete
18 way? Sulejman Tihic had nothing to do with this as the President of the
19 Party of Democratic Action. What I did, I did, relatively speaking, on my
21 Q. I didn't ask you anything about Sulejman Tihic.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: No, the witness has explained. Let's move on.
23 MR. PANTELIC: Let's move on. That's my idea.
24 Mr. Usher, please take the document here. Mr. Usher, you can have
25 this copy of the witness statement to give to the witness, please.
1 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, we will take a look at your
2 statement a little bit later. Did you in a document or at a certain
3 occasion say the following: "When the enemy occupied the entire town, the
4 activity within it should be done in smaller groups and formations in the
5 entire part of -- area of the town by using sabotage, assassinations, and
6 other kinds of activities. For the completion of these tasks, it is
7 necessary to create an engineering corps which should be well-armed with
8 modern weapons and also equipped with motor vehicles, explosives and
9 mines." Did you say -- do you have any knowledge?
10 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, the quotation is fine, as far as
11 I'm concerned, but in order to be fair to the witness, I don't think you
12 can say to him, "Did you in a document or at a certain occasion say." I
13 think you've got to tell him which document or on what occasion. It's a
14 bit oblique, shall we say, to put it in that general way. So could you
15 tell him when or in what document?
16 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely, Your Honour. I would be more than
17 happy to put that question with these elements but I don't know, I just
18 have an information about the contents of certain plan or something like
19 that, so I don't know when, how, or who, in fact, so I tried to make this
20 inquiry with this witness, whether he is familiar with this wording and
21 this explanations. Nothing more.
22 JUDGE WILLIAMS: But it struck me, when you were reading, that you
23 were doing a direct quotation, and if you've got a direct quotation, this
24 isn't just what you are have just said now, which is you have information
25 about the contents of a certain plan. You're giving us a direct quote.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, but I don't have this document as
2 such. I have only parts of certain -- I don't know, plan or whatever. So
3 if this witness can give us the explanations whether or not he is familiar
4 with this issues, then we can go on, and then probably we can produce
5 something because I have certain notes from the field about these elements
6 of maybe it's plan, maybe it's not plan.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Maybe we hear from Mr. Weiner.
8 MR. WEINER: I've got a couple of questions. One is, the proper
9 way of doing it is you say: "On a certain date, did you attend a
10 meeting? At that meeting, did you say the following?" The other question
11 I have even a step back from that is, are they asking him did he say that?
12 Twice there was indications from Mr. Pantelic, are you familiar with this
13 type of -- is this a theory, a military theory, that they're asking if he
14 is familiar with this military theory or are they asking him if he ever
15 said this? And did he say it in context of teaching maybe in 1985 how to
16 take over a town for military offices or is this something that he said on
17 the eve of a battle, "Here is what we are going to do"? Then you have
18 relevance but --
19 MR. PANTELIC: That is also my idea, Your Honours, to see what is
20 the source of --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, the discussion has been sufficient.
22 If you can't identify the document, you can't identify the occasion, then
23 you can't put it to the witness, because it's like fishing.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Okay. I'll try to --
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yeah.
1 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. Mr. Fitozovic, it is hard for me to say exactly what time or where
3 this took place but I'm asking you, did you ever, as part of the diagrams
4 of military units that you made, which is undisputed, did you give any
5 explanations about how these units should function, that is to say, did
6 you maybe write such explanations?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Do you remember that in some document, in a document, in the
9 period from October, 1991 to April, 1992, you described the following
10 thing --
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, before you go ahead.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: If you can't identify the document or indeed the
14 occasion, the question will not be allowed because, you see, you're trying
15 to put into evidence matters which you, yourself, know nothing -- the
16 source, whose source you can't identify. That's not the way you
18 MR. PANTELIC: Okay, Your Honour, but I'm just asking a line of
19 questions about the knowledge of this particular witness of certain areas
20 that he covered at that time. Nothing more. I mean, if the answer would
21 be affirmative, then we could proceed. Otherwise, I'm in the same
22 situation almost like him.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no, no. You have to follow the correct
24 process of cross-examination. You can't just ask questions from no where.
25 The point is, what is your case? What is the Defence case?
1 MR. PANTELIC: Okay, Your Honour. I will gladly do that, but I
2 don't have a date, I don't have title of so-called document. I have
3 nothing. So I have to --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: There is no basis for your question, then.
5 MR. PANTELIC: I have to have this kind of explanation you know.
6 Maybe it's a fishing expedition but --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: That is not allowed. That is not allowed. Because
8 we have an indictment here with a specific allegations.
9 MR. PANTELIC: I agree, Your Honour. Let's move to another topic.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: How much more time? Because if this type of
11 cross-examination is continuing, I will stop you.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, okay.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Because it seems to me that you have completed your
14 cross-examination and all that you're doing is fishing.
15 MR. PANTELIC: No, no, no. Your Honour, I have a couple, ten or
16 15 very precise questions, and we are going -- I now would like to go
17 through his statement from 1995 and then a couple of concluding questions.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm giving you ten minutes.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Okay, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: If you don't finish in ten minutes -- this is 9.40.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I beg you for another five minutes
22 because of the so-extensive answers of this witness.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no, no. I've given you ten minutes from
24 now on. Let's see how your cross-examination goes. Otherwise, you stop;
25 that's it.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I agree absolutely.
2 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, could you please turn to the
3 fourth page of your statement, in the upper right-hand corner? The last
4 numbers are 778. I'm going to read this but you can check whether you
5 agree with what I'm reading.
6 The last sentence on this page: "We would usually meet at the
7 cafe called Molla. One March night in 1992, we were sitting in Molla
8 when, across from the cafe, a car parked, in which three Chetniks were,
9 and they had their weapons pointing at us. Before they could shoot, our
10 guards started shooting at them, and the three of them were severely
11 injured." You said this to the Prosecutor in 1995; is that correct?
12 A. Yes. That's what I said to the OTP in 1995, in February. At the
13 very beginning of my testimony, I also said that this statement was given
14 seven years ago and the war activities were still going on at the time.
15 Q. We heard that, sir.
16 A. In some parts, this statement might be a little bit subjective,
17 but in this part here, there is nothing that can be disputed. This is
18 exactly what I said. Maybe the difference might be that right now I
19 wouldn't say "Chetnik," I would say "enemy." But this is just because of
20 a time distance that had an influence on me. Therefore, right now, I
21 would make a distinction between a Chetnik and an enemy.
22 Q. All right. Sir. I understand you. So other than this word
23 "Chetnik," this is all true? You stand by this statement? I'm referring
24 to the sentence that I read out to you.
25 A. Yes. But maybe also where it says here, "our guards," it's
1 undisputed that this was a patrol.
2 Q. So would you agree that, "The members of our patrol started
4 A. No, we could not agree on that. I can tell you - but I also
5 mentioned this in my testimony - that these were members of the reserve
6 police corps, and I think this issue has been resolved.
7 Q. Now I'm going to read to you what you said to my colleague,
8 Pisarevic, on the 29th of May, page 8538, lines between 4 and 7. His
9 question had to do -- was as follows. [In English] "So you did not see
10 this incident, you only heard about it in the cafe; is that correct?" And
11 your answer was, "Yes, and I was told who was seen and what happened."
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner?
13 MR. WEINER: Which incident? He was questioned about a lot of
14 incidents. There was one where he was questioned, it sounds like he made
15 a similar answer, about the guns being delivered on a separate occasion.
16 Which incident?
17 MR. PANTELIC: No, Your Honour, we are speaking about incident on
18 Cafe Molla. My friend from the Prosecution can turn this page and find
19 that this is -- I'm going to ask this question about these contradictions,
20 simply as that. Now we are speaking about the incident in Cafe Molla,
22 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, when you answered my colleague in
23 this manner, this is different from what you're saying now. You said to
24 him that you weren't there, that you just heard about the event, and now
25 you're saying that you were there. So what's the true version here?
1 A. Sir, it is true that people came up, came to kill me, and I saw
2 these people, that's what I said. I said the same thing to Mr. Pisarevic.
3 I saw them myself, I described the event, I described exactly what
4 happened, that the person sitting on to the -- on the seat right next to
5 the driver pulled down the window, and that before that, you could hear a
6 shot fired by the driver. The driver shot into the ceiling of the car.
7 This was done by the butcher Mesic. The other two took their automatic
8 rifles. These were Russian-made rifles. At that moment, the members of
9 the military police started shooting. And I also mentioned the names of
10 these two policemen. Then the car went about 70 metres further to the
11 junction, where Sabanovic came up to it and he took those young men
12 to the emergency room. That's what I said, Mr. Pantelic. And now you're
13 telling me that I wasn't there.
14 Q. I'm just doing my job. I have two records and I'm trying to clear
15 things up. Please, let's not waste any time. I'm asking you for the last
16 time, and could you please answer "yes" or "no." During this incident,
17 this shooting incident, were you at the Cafe Molla?
18 A. Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
19 Q. Well, thank you very much. Let's move on. Page 779, those are
20 the last three numbers on the page. This is the fifth paragraph of your
21 statement to the OTP. Actually, this is the sixth paragraph, I apologise.
22 MR. WEINER: Could you identify the page number, please, because
23 the English is different from the B/C/S version, just identify the page
25 MR. PANTELIC: I don't have. It's probably due to the copying
1 problem. Including cover page, it should be page 5.
2 MR. WEINER: Okay. Thank you. Sorry.
3 MR. PANTELIC:
4 Q. [Interpretation] You were saying that on the 15th of April, you
5 got 50 automatic rifles?
6 A. What did you say, 778?
7 Q. 779, the sixth paragraph. You were saying that the weapons were
8 obtained privately and that they did not come from either Croatia or
9 Sarajevo, "We didn't receive them officially from Sarajevo. On the 16th
10 of April, we distributed them to the braver ones. I did that publicly. I
11 insisted on distributing the weapons in public because I wanted to create
12 an idea of balance of power to make the Muslims and Croats feel stronger.
13 I often wonder whether I made a mistake with this action."
14 All right. So this is what I'm interested in. If you said that
15 in 1995, what did you mean by this, that you often wonder whether you made
16 a mistake? In what sense did you mean this? Would you have done
17 something differently or something else?
18 A. I will explain this to you and this thing will become clear to
20 Q. Could you please explain this to the Trial Chamber?
21 A. I was wondering very often whether I made a mistake. These 50
22 rifles, I distributed on a public and official place at the Territorial
23 Defence. Across the Territorial Defence, there is the building of the
24 police of Bosanski Samac. On the first floor of the police station,
25 everything was observed, this distribution of weapons was observed. When
1 a member of the TO got the gun, put his name in the record, he would go to
2 his home. That night, on the 16th, this whole event finished around 4.00
3 or 5.00 p.m. This distribution ended at that time. After that, at 6.00
4 p.m., a meeting was arranged on which Mr. Marko Bozanovic, Dragan Lukac,
5 and Safet Hadzialijagic, nicknamed "Pop," and also representatives of
6 other political parties, Simo Zaric from the 4th Detachment, and so on,
7 were present. On this -- in this meeting -- well, actually, I told you
8 already about this meeting, what was going on there, and how the meeting
9 was ended. Simo Zaric, that is to say we actually -- we parted, and we
10 were assured by Simo Zaric that there would be no attack and so on, but
11 the attack did happen three hours later.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: We have been through this before. You don't have to
14 MR. PANTELIC:
15 Q. [Interpretation] So Mr. Fitozovic --
16 A. Well, why did I think I made a mistake? I thought I made a
17 mistake because I did this publicly. I didn't get any time by doing it
18 publicly, and the members of the 4th Detachment and of the military, they
19 noticed this distribution of weapons, and they just sped up the events.
20 Maybe I also contributed to the speeding up of the events because of my
21 distribution, of my public distribution. Maybe that is why the aggression
22 took place that very night and not two or three nights later. That's
23 where I made a mistake. And I still, to this day, think that that was a
24 mistake. What happened has nothing to do with my mistake. That would
25 have happened any way, as it happened in the entire territory of Bosnia
1 and Herzegovina.
2 Q. Thank you, Mr. Fitozovic. Now we are going to page 782, that is
3 the ERN number. Somewhere in the middle of the third paragraph, you are
4 talking about the money for supply and that kind of thing, you had some
5 certificates issued, and you say the following: "This money I used for
6 people -- "
7 MR. WEINER: Which page?
8 MR. PANTELIC: Again, I only have number, ERN number, in B/C/S
9 version. It should be -- let me check. It should be eighth page, page
10 number 8.
11 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
12 MR. PANTELIC: You're welcome.
13 Q. [Interpretation] So you're saying: "This money I used for people
14 that patrolled the streets. SDA was giving it to me. I got 1100
15 deutschmarks." That's what you said in 1995?
16 A. Yes. I got 1100 deutschmarks from the SDA. This money was
17 gathered from all people that had private establishments in Bosanski
18 Samac. So every private establishment, be it a shop or a cafe of some
19 sort, gave a contribution so that the people that were members of the
20 patrol could -- would have enough money to eat and have a drink somewhere.
21 And later, also for fuel. Because we weren't getting not even a dinar
22 from the toll that the SDS and the other patrols on the main routes were
23 collecting, and that's where the 4th Detachment was getting its money
25 Q. Thank you. I am finished with this line of questions that have to
1 do with your statement.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Mr. Usher, please, could I have your assistance?
3 This is the also scheme or kind of sketch of the organisation -- structure
4 of the unit for the defence of the town.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: You have an original?
6 MR. PANTELIC: No. I have only a copy, Your Honour. It's very,
7 very --
8 JUDGE MUMBA: The copies we have are so dark.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Mine is also not so good but maybe the witness can
10 clarify with us.
11 Mr. Usher, please, could you put -- do you have a copy for the
12 ELMO, please?
13 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic.
14 MR. PANTELIC: First could we have ID numbers, Your Honours?
15 JUDGE MUMBA: The other problem is some words are cut off on this
16 photocopy, on the edges, on the left and on the right.
17 MR. PANTELIC: My copy is the same, Your Honours. I really don't
19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Maybe the witness can help us if he
20 knows about it.
21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, maybe we could discuss this document for now
22 and then we shall check within our archives and documents if we can have
23 one better copy. And then we can submit it. I don't know.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, when did this -- when was this
25 document created?
1 A. Mr. Pantelic, this for me is no document. This is the first time
2 I see this. This may -- might be a forgery of some sort.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we just have the ID number for it?
4 MR. PANTELIC: ID number, yes.
5 THE REGISTRAR: It will be D42/1 ter ID, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Please repeat it.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Repeat the number.
8 THE REGISTRAR: It will be D42/1 ter ID, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic, the witness --
10 MR. PANTELIC: My next question, Your Honours is the following:
11 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, is this your handwriting that's on
12 this document, yes or no?
13 A. No, Mr. Pantelic.
14 Q. Mr. Fitozovic --
15 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness has said that this is the first time he
16 has seen -- [French translation] Go on asking him.
17 MR. PANTELIC: I only have to engage the forensic expert to have
18 some, in Defence case, to have some opinions and then we shall see what is
19 truth and what is not.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: And you, as you said, you are going to search for
21 the original?
22 MR. PANTELIC: If I would be able, of course, I will search for
23 the original.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Otherwise, it can't be used with this witness.
25 MR. PANTELIC: Obviously, because this witness says it's the first
1 time that he's seeing this document. The only way for the Defence is to
2 check all elements according to the forensic doctrine. Okay.
3 MR. WEINER: If they can find the original, I've got no problem
4 faxing it to him, notifying it, sending a good copy, having him look at it
5 again, or doing something.
6 MR. PANTELIC: My understanding, the only copy that I have at that
7 moment. I will make some additional inquiries, see with the supporting
8 staff in the --
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, so we move on.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
11 Q. [Interpretation] You know who Bakir Alispahic is; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, I've heard of him.
13 Q. Who is he?
14 A. He's a prisoner right now.
15 Q. What was he before?
16 A. I think he was a Minister of the Police, of the republic police
18 Q. What republic?
19 A. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr. Pantelic.
20 Q. I'm asking you because of the transcript, Mr. Fitozovic, because
21 we have to have everything as clear as possible. I know what you're
22 trying to say, but because of the Judges and everybody else, we have to
23 make sure everything is clear. I have no other intention. When was he at
24 this position in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
25 A. Well, Mr. Pantelic, I wouldn't be able to tell you. I did not
1 follow his work. I had my own things to do.
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner?
3 A. I can't tell you right now.
4 MR. WEINER: How is this relevant to Bosanski Samac, any of this?
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic?
6 MR. PANTELIC: Just wait. Okay.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, do you know that Alispahic was in
8 a car when there was a truck being unloaded with weapons in Bosanski
10 A. Mr. Pantelic, I have no knowledge of that.
11 Q. We will agree that the military organisation, Patriotic League,
12 was founded in 1990?
13 A. I do not know.
14 Q. Have you heard about the Patriotic League?
15 A. Yes, I read about it.
16 Q. Do you have any personal knowledge when was the Patriotic League
18 A. I have no personal knowledge.
19 Q. Do you have personal knowledge when the armed formations, Muslim
20 armed formations, were formed, the so-called Green Berets?
21 A. I have no personal knowledge about that.
22 Q. Did such a formation exist called the Green Berets?
23 A. I have heard that they existed.
24 Q. If you have generally heard, you know nothing specific about it?
25 A. Yes. Nothing specific, as you have shown me with your hand.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, what is the point of all this?
2 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, link, link with the armed formation
3 of SDA in Samac well prior the April, 1992. The link, Your Honours, and I
4 will go through these questions, with your permission.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Do you have, Mr. Fitozovic, any knowledge that in
6 the period March-April, 1992, vis-a-vis Bosanski Samac -- in the region of
7 Slavonski Samac in Croatia, that over 1.000 members of the Green Berets
8 were stationed there?
9 A. Can you again repeat the question and the event, please? I did
10 not follow.
11 Q. Do you have, Mr. Fitozovic, personal knowledge, that in the period
12 March-April, 1992, in Slavonski Samac, which is right across the river
13 from Bosanski Samac, and it is located in Croatia, that it was there that
14 over 1.000 members of well-armed Green Berets were there; yes or no?
15 A. Mr. Pantelic, the answer is no.
16 Q. Mr. Fitozovic, while you were in battle operations and fighting
17 within the HVO brigade, did you kill enemies?
18 A. Yes -- no.
19 Q. When forming the armed unit in Samac, planned to kill your -- Serb
20 inhabitants of Samac, fellow inhabitants of Samac?
21 A. No, Mr. Pantelic.
22 Q. What was the purpose of this unit?
23 A. To observe the town and to protect it from those who were
24 occupying it. I said it should be multi-ethnic and accepted by all the
25 inhabitants of Bosanski Samac. That was the purpose.
1 Q. What would you -- what was the purpose of this -- these weapons
2 you had and the unit had? What would have been used?
3 A. The weapons of that unit were placed at the disposal of the
4 Territorial Defence and was under the control of the Territorial Defence.
5 Q. That was not my question. I will ask the question again. Did
6 President SDA, Sulejman Tihic, influence you prior to your arrival to
7 The Hague, and that you deny any connection with these organised
8 formations, armed formations?
9 A. The answer is no, Mr. Pantelic.
10 Q. Is AID, the secret police organisation, give you any instructions
11 how to act and the posture to take in The Hague?
12 A. No, Mr. Pantelic.
13 Q. You were also criminally charged for --
14 A. Yes, I was charged and I was -- it was -- if I had to pay a fine,
15 and it was Mr. Pisarevic who defended me on that occasion.
16 Q. The question, my next question, has already been answered. So you
17 did commit a criminal offence, a criminal offence?
18 A. Carried out of negligence, is my answer.
19 MR. WEINER: There is a proper way of impeaching someone with a
20 prior conviction. This isn't a proper way of doing it. I don't know the
21 date. We don't know if these are old things, we don't know if this is a
22 misdemeanour. If it's a misdemeanour and it goes back a long time, I
23 would object because it wouldn't even be admissible.
24 MR. PANTELIC: He will give us direct answers, Your Honour. I
25 will just ask him.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, let's shorten this.
2 Mr. Fitozovic, can you just explain what the criminal charges if
3 any were about?
4 MR. PANTELIC: Can I lead him with the questions?
5 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, let him answer from the Bench.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Okay.
7 Q. [Interpretation] Answer the Court, please. Why were you tried,
8 what kind of criminal charges?
9 A. Well, all criminal charges referred to the electric supply company
10 in 1985-86, and on that occasion, a part, a transformer station, burned
11 down and one of the operators was charged, as well as I, who was his head.
12 I was defended and represented by Mr. Pisarevic, and it was treated as an
13 act of negligence. And I had to pay a fine, a symbolic fine. And that
14 these are the criminal charges -- all the criminal charges concerning
15 myself in 45 years, and I don't know whether it was treated as criminal
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner?
18 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, since is this is over 15 years old, it's
19 not clear if it's a felony or a misdemeanour. It appears to be criminal
20 negligence, so I'm assuming it's a misdemeanour. A fine was -- his
21 sentence, apparently, or punishment, was a fine. I move that this be
22 stricken from the record or that the Court not even consider it.
23 MR. PANTELIC: No, I disagree, Your Honour. My next question will
24 clarify that.
25 Q. [Interpretation] Do you agree that in 1991 you had been condemned
1 for -- on the basis of the Article 172 of the Penal Code? And that is in
2 1991, not in --
3 A. I don't know. Show me that.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, you are now discussing something else
5 before 1991, isn't it?
6 MR. PANTELIC: 1991, yes. He was practically officially sentenced
7 in 1991. It's not 1985. That's --
8 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Excuse me, Mr. Pantelic, for what?
9 MR. PANTELIC: For -- I will tell you. This is -- it's hard to
10 translate. I don't know in English do we have this article. It's Article
11 172 of the Penal Code of Bosnia-Herzegovina. I will say it in Serbian.
12 [Interpretation] For causing general danger. [In English] Which, in
13 brief, is that he was sentenced for the negligence in his professional
14 work. Then one power plant, small power plant, blown up, and there was
15 some damage for this company that he's worked for the electrical company,
16 and stuff like that. That's my understanding, and maybe he can confirm
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner.
19 MR. WEINER: Once again, this sounds like some sort of criminal
20 negligence. I don't even know if that's a type of felony or I would say a
21 misdemeanour which would be recognised in countries around the world. I
22 think it should just be deleted or stricken or just not considered,
23 although it remains in the transcript. I think this whole thing should be
24 stricken. It's over ten years. The incident itself occurred over 15
25 years, and I think it's just a waste of time here. It's irrelevant.
1 MR. PANTELIC: My question, Your Honour, was not to impeach this
2 witness with his personal background and this kind of thing because I
3 tried --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: What is your point, then?
5 MR. PANTELIC: I'm going to the point now.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no, explain to the Chamber what is your
8 MR. PANTELIC: My point is that this witness is not telling the
9 truth when he claimed that he was dismissed from his professional post, he
10 was fired from the company, due to so-called ethnic problems or stuff like
11 that. The real cause, Your Honours, was that it is not moral for the
12 employee in the power, electric company, not to pay bills and also, if he
13 caused certain damage by his criminal act to his company, in all
14 jurisdictions all over the world, there are certain internal sanctions
15 such as removal from this post to another post, stuff likes -- because the
16 picture and the atmosphere that my learned friend from Prosecution tried
17 to create was like this, and I want to put all this on the table. I want
18 to clarify these things because it was not the case that he was removed
19 from his post to another post within his company due to the ethnic -- I
20 don't know, ethnic reason.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner?
22 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, this is -- number one, I don't know how
23 he's going to prove this with this type of information. Now 2, we have a
24 bit of a problem because it wasn't brought out by the -- by Mr. Pisarevic,
25 who cross-examined him over two days and specifically on that, and
1 further, Mr. Pisarevic was his legal counsel on that. So there is a
2 problem that we might have to ask Mr. Pisarevic for certain information.
3 And number 2, now we are getting into attorney-client privilege. We are
4 getting into a mess here. And I think that it's -- unless he can prove,
5 it's one thing --
6 MR. PANTELIC: If you will allow me, Your Honour, with a few
7 questions, we will resolve this.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, we discussed this at length and it is
9 a matter you can take up in your Defence and produce the records, which I
10 believe you have, to show that the reason for his removal from office is
11 according to what you state.
12 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely. But allow me in my cross-examination
13 with a certain points of my questioning to create the foundation that I
14 will raise it -- the witness is here, Your Honour.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
16 MR. PANTELIC: So, please.
17 Q. [Interpretation] You've stated -- you've answered to colleague, my
18 colleague, Pisarevic, for not payment of bills, that in communism it was
19 considered immoral for people who were working in the utility company not
20 to pay their electricity bills?
21 JUDGE MUMBA: [Previous translation continues] ... What was
22 considered as what, simply ask him, put it to him what you think the
23 Defence is saying was the reason for his removal from office. It's
25 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, there is certain issue that I want to
1 clarify. During the cross-examination of this witness, he said something
2 which is not clear.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: What is it?
4 MR. PANTELIC: That he said that he considered that in communism,
5 it was not -- that the communist system -- it was immoral not to pay
6 regular bills as an official, as a worker, of electric company, and my
7 question is very simple: If he said that, I ask for his opinion what is
8 his position towards the free market economy --
9 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no, no. Mr. Pantelic, we are not going
10 into that.
11 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. The next question, Mr. Fitozovic, do you agree with me that you
13 have been dismissed from your post in the Elektrodistribucija company due
14 to the policy of the company which did not allow its employees to give a
15 bad example to the public by not paying their bills?
16 A. This is a funny question, Mr. Pantelic. I believe that I already
17 completed my answer to that question, but if I have to answer each
18 question three times, and then you will try and find the difference
19 between the three answers --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Fitozovic, just answer briefly. Just give the
21 answer briefly. Is it true that you were removed from your office because
22 the company did not allow its employees to give a bad example to the
23 public by not paying their bills? That's the question.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour.
25 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Next question: An additional reason for your dismissal and
2 removal to another post, that through your criminal negligence, you caused
3 a big loss to your company?
4 A. No, Mr. Pantelic.
5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Pantelic, on that note, maybe you could
6 briefly find out from Mr. Fitozovic, if this alleged criminal negligence
7 occurred in 1985 to 1986, why was -- to use your words, Mr. Pantelic, why
8 was he condemned or found guilty and sentenced to this fine in 1991, the
9 same year that he was dismissed from his job? It seems a big gap from
10 1985 to 1991. So perhaps we can just find out very briefly --
11 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.
12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: -- why there was this big time gap. We come to
13 1991, obviously, a year which becomes important for our events.
14 MR. PANTELIC: This is the really general matter, Your Honours.
15 The justice is sometimes not so speedy. It's a slow process of justice.
16 It's the first thing in general. He's not a legal expert.
17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Fitozovic is nodding his head. Maybe he
18 could respond very briefly why it took so long.
19 MR. PANTELIC: The question might be first:
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, this trial, and the entire
21 procedure, when the transformer station burned down, when the transformer
22 station burned, that was the case, yes or no?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. When did that event take place? When did it burn down?
25 A. I mentioned in 1985, 1986.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: The next question should only be when was it
2 completed with the court system.
3 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. When did you receive the verdict?
5 A. I heard it only from you that it was in 1991. I didn't consider
6 it very important. It was negligence. I had to pay a fine to the amount,
7 and the cost was of a box of cigarettes, a carton of cigarettes.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: And that was paid in 1991? Or you can't remember?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. It was paid within the legal
10 framework by that date, the deadline, and I paid it. It was a symbolic
12 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Mr. Pantelic, Mr. Fitozovic, I think these
13 questions could be straightened out very easily. I put a question to the
14 witness and the question runs as follows: Was the reason for your firing
15 in 1991, when you were dismissed and removed, your negligence in 1985 or
16 not paying your electric bills? Yes or no?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, neither of the two reasons, Your
19 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Thank you.
20 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Fitozovic, when the transformer station burned down, was
22 anybody killed?
23 A. No.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: [Microphone not activated]
25 MR. PANTELIC: I agree.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: You're winding up your cross-examination now.
2 MR. PANTELIC: It's a couple of questions.
3 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Fitozovic, can we agree that you, in
4 cooperation with Mr. Tihic, Mr. Izet Izetbegovic, and Mr. Dragan Lukac,
5 and others from the SDA and HDZ in Samac, in the period October-December
6 1991, planned an armed takeover of the government in Samac?
7 A. No, Mr. Pantelic.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Second and final question.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Excuse me, Your Honour?
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Second and final question.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Two questions. It's a two-folded question.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, no, no, no. Second and final question.
13 That's all.
14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Will you agree with me if I say that you have set up your own
16 armed unit, your intelligence unit, at the end of 1991 and up to April,
17 1992, in close coordination with SDA and HDZ?
18 A. No, Mr. Pantelic.
19 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, I finished with my questions. Thank
20 you very much.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Re-examination, Mr. Weiner?
22 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, would you like to take an early break
23 and start at 5 before 11.00 or start my re-examination now?
24 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. We can have a break so the witness can
25 also rest a bit. We will take a break now and resume at five minutes
1 before 11 hours.
2 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
3 --- On resuming at 10.56 a.m.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, re-examination by the Prosecution.
5 Re-examined by Mr. Weiner:
6 Q. Mr. Fitozovic, good morning, I'd like to clarify some matters that
7 were raised on cross-examination. Let's begin by talking about both the
8 independent military units and Territorial Defence units which were
9 established to defend and protect Bosanski Samac. Did you ever consult
10 with Sulejman Tihic or any SDA party leaders concerning the operations of
11 either unit?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Did you ever consult with Sulejman Tihic or SDA party leaders
14 concerning day-to-day activities of either unit?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you consult with Sulejman Tihic or SDA party leaders in
17 relation to the staffing of the unit?
18 A. No.
19 Q. And finally, did you consult with those same persons in relation
20 to the assignment of personnel for either unit?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Did you consult with the HDZ party leaders concerning any of those
23 matters I just mentioned: operations, day-to-day activities, staffing,
24 assignments of personnel, of either unit?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Why didn't you consult with the party leaders?
2 A. Your Honours, here I must explain the following. That is why, in
3 fact, I had been invited. Throughout my activity from October 1991 --
4 from September, 1991, to the beginning of the aggression, the 17th of
5 April, 1992, throughout that time, all the time I was fleeing and avoiding
6 Sulejman Tihic, or I didn't allow him to come close to me in the sense
7 that he would be giving certain suggestions concerning the forming of the
8 -- this unit which was, in fact, already formed. Why did I do that? The
9 reasons are the following: Mr. Tihic was, from the first days of this
10 period under observation -- relevant period, from September, 1991, until
11 the aggression, had contact with certain structures of the state security
12 service in Doboj, where Simo Zaric was employed. Therefore, I didn't
13 believe him in this sense.
14 Next, I avoided the possibility of giving party connotations to
15 that unit. In the party, Mr. Izet Izetbegovic was present and Sulejman
16 Tihic represented -- presented to the public during this period as a
17 person who had a penchant for alcohol consumption, which is not true, but
18 it is something that was left in the public domain. Therefore, when
19 forming these units, I was avoiding also Izet Izetbegovic. Throughout
20 this testimony of mine, it's clear that this unit belonged neither to the
21 Green Berets, nor to the unit of the Patriotic League. As a child who
22 grew up in Bosanski Samac, and as I say grew up there, where everybody
23 knew me, be it Serbs, Croats and Muslims, I wished to form such a unit
24 which would defend Bosanski Samac against all occupying forces. And even
25 if Bosanski Samac were endangered by Muslim fundamentalism, I, in my
1 capacity of organiser of the unit, I would fight also against such ideas.
2 However, I did have the support of moral support - not
3 professional but moral support - of many reserve officers, be it Serbs,
4 Muslims or Croats, who were really -- who wanted to join the Territorial
5 Defence but such a defence which would have no links with the party SDA or
6 any other political party. In that sense, that unit was formed. So no --
7 it didn't belong to any other armies or have links with any other parties.
8 And that is why Sulejman Tihic, I avoided him, and I didn't allow him to
9 have closer contacts with me. Because of those characteristics in which
10 he painted Izet Izetbegovic, I would avoid also Izet Izetbegovic, in order
11 to have around me as many people as possible who were not under the
12 political influence of a party or under some other political influence.
13 This is as far as your question is concerned, sir.
14 Q. Okay. Let's continue on with those -- with the first unit, the --
15 your private, if you want to call it, your private military unit. You
16 testified that, in March, members who were working the patrols began being
17 paid; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, that's correct.
19 Q. And you also testified that the SDA gave you some money for that;
20 is that correct?
21 A. Yes. The party gave me 1100 deutschmarks.
22 Q. Now, did other persons give you money for the unit?
23 A. Yes. All people that owned a private enterprise of some sort in
24 the city of Bosanski Samac gave me some financial help so that these young
25 men could be ensured to receive food, fuel and so on. These were all very
1 symbolic amounts.
2 Q. Where did you receive the most -- most of the money or the
3 majority of the funds? From the SDA or from the private businesses?
4 A. From the private businesses.
5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Fitozovic, you say that this
6 private funding came from, to quote you, "all people."
7 Could you tell us whether "all people" refers to all ethnic groups
8 or not, as the case might be, who owned these private businesses?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I could say that this included
10 members of all ethnic groups except the Serbs. There were only one or two
11 such cases. As far as Croats are concerned, those that had some kind of a
12 business in Bosanski Samac, I got their participation of 100 per cent.
13 And maybe about 90 per cent of the Muslims that owned these private
14 businesses were also supporting us.
15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
16 MR. WEINER:
17 Q. Now, let's continue on with the Territorial Defence unit. Were
18 all citizens in Bosanski Samac invited to join the Territorial Defence
20 A. Yes. This was a public invitation and everybody was invited.
21 Q. Does that include Serbs?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Members of the SDS party, does that include them?
24 A. I don't know. Not the SDS. All the Serbs that did not belong to
25 political parties, or if they belonged to the SDS party privately, they
1 could still also register with the TO.
2 Q. And you publicly invited members of the 4th Detachment to join the
3 Territorial Defence unit?
4 A. Yes. In the meeting that took place on the 16th of April, at 6.00
5 p.m. - the defendant Zaric was also there - I invited the 4th Detachment
6 members to join the Territorial Defence.
7 Q. Now, you showed us some of your plans that you had made for the
8 certain units that you had, the anti-sabotage unit, the medical unit, the
9 communications unit. Do you recall showing us those plans?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And you indicated previously that those had been drafted on or
12 about April 13th and 14th of 1992; is that correct?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Now, after April 13th and 14th, did you continue to go out and get
15 new members for the Territorial Defence?
16 A. I didn't go look for them. They were coming themselves to the
17 offices of the Territorial Defence and they volunteered.
18 Q. And these people who volunteered on the 15th and 16th, were there
19 members of the -- were any of those people Croats and Serbs?
20 A. Yes. There were Croats and Serbs among them.
21 Q. And were there members of the 4th Detachment that were recruited
22 or that voluntarily joined on April 15th and 16th, after you had completed
23 those unit plans?
24 A. At the moment when the plans were made, there were no members of
25 the 4th Detachment, but they did register with the Territorial Defence.
1 The dilemma was just how to register their weapons that they received from
2 the 4th Detachment, and this was a question that I posed to Zaric on the
3 meeting that happened on the 16th of April, 1992.
4 Q. All right. But the fact that these people registered after you
5 had drafted your plans, Serbs, Croats, members of the 4th Detachment, were
6 you intending to modify or revise those units based on these new additions
7 to the Territorial Defence?
8 A. Yes, of course. We had such plans.
9 Q. Now, why didn't you in fact revise or modify those initial plans?
10 A. We didn't do it because the aggression happened on the 17th of
11 April, after midnight. So we had no opportunity to consolidate all these
12 units and the names and specialties and so on.
13 Q. Getting away from that, you testified very briefly that
14 Radovan Karadzic visited Bosanski Samac. Do you recall when that
16 A. Yes. This was in December, 1991.
17 Q. And was this a speech or did he just take a tour of the area?
18 What did he do when he got there?
19 A. He came to hold a political speech and also to make preparations
20 for the creation of the Serbian municipality of Samac.
21 Q. Were any of the defendants present with him or when he spoke?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Which defendants were with him?
24 A. Blagoje Simic was there of the defendants. I can't say anything
25 about the others.
1 Q. And was this at the speech that Blagoje Simic was there?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And while Blagoje Simic, the defendant, was there, what do you
4 recall Radovan Karadzic said about Bosanski Samac, the creation of a
5 Serbian municipality? What did he say?
6 A. Of course, I can't quote verbatim what Radovan Karadzic said. I
7 had said earlier that in this meeting, the Serbian municipality of
8 Bosanski Samac was supposed to be formed and also its boundaries, its
9 borders, should have been established, to determine what territory this
10 Serbian municipality would encompass. Those were mainly the town of
11 Samac, all the villages with Serb population, and Croatian villages,
12 Zasavica, Tisina, Donji Hasic, Gornji Hasic, Novo Selo, Tursinovac, and
13 also a part of Grebnice, and Kornica.
14 Q. And did Radovan Antic explain, while the defendant Blagoje Simic
15 was present, how this conversion was supposed to take place where Bosanski
16 Samac was going to change from a municipality run by --
17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Weiner.
18 MR. WEINER: I'm sorry, Radovan Karadzic.
19 Q. Did Radovan Karadzic explain how the municipality of Bosanski
20 Samac was going to suddenly be converted to Serbian Samac? Did he explain
22 A. Yes. He explained it in the following way. First of all, this
23 had to be done with political negotiations, including other political
24 parties that existed in Bosanski Samac, but if this could not be done in
25 such a way, then a date would be set as a condition when these parties
1 would have to agree with the formation or the -- with the formation of the
2 municipality of Srpski Samac. After that, in the same place, Lieutenant
3 Colonel Nikolic, the commander of the 17th Tactical Group, said, "We will
4 be in blood up to your knees here." This is what he said word for word.
5 Q. Was the defendant present when Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic said
6 that, "We would be up to our knees in blood," [Realtime transcript read in
7 error "your knees"] or "We will be in blood up to our knees here"? When a
8 statement along those lines was made, was the
9 defendant Blagoje Simic present?
10 A. Blagoje Simic was not present. Simo Zaric was present then.
11 Q. Now, when Radovan Karadzic made his statement about converting
12 Bosanski Samac into a Serbian Bosanski Samac, was the defendant Blagoje
13 Simic present? And where they said the parties will have to agree by a
14 certain date, was the defendant present?
15 A. Yes.
16 JUDGE LINDHOLM: On page 45, line 11, the witness said, "After
17 that, in the same place, Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic, the commander of the
18 17th Tactical Group said, "We will be in blood up to your knees here."
19 There is some confusion there. Who is "we" and who is "you"? "We will be
20 in blood up to your knees here." What is the meaning behind that
21 statement? Thank you.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Can I explain?
23 MR. WEINER: Please answer the Judge's question.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: I see Mr. Lazarevic on his feet.
25 MR. LAZAREVIC: I'm not objecting to the line of examining by
1 Mr. Weiner but I believe the witness was talking about two events, and if
2 my learned colleague could clarify was Mr. Colonel Nikolic present when
3 Radovan Karadzic was speaking or he was talking -- because he was talking
4 only about the same place, not about same time. Because I am a bit
5 confused, is he talking about one event or two separate events?
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner? You can clarify that with the
7 witness and also let the witness answer the question from the Bench.
8 MR. WEINER: Okay.
9 Q. The first question, sir: Were you referring to two meetings which
10 occurred in December at that same location, one with the defendant
11 Blagoje Simic, and Radovan Karadzic, and a second meeting with
12 Colonel Nikolic and the defendant Simo Zaric?
13 A. Yes. I was talking about two events that took place, one after
14 the other, but they both took place in the same location.
15 Q. And just two brief questions: Which one occurred first and what
16 was the time period between the two events?
17 A. First, Radovan Karadzic arrived, and shortly thereafter, the
18 meeting was held in the memorial centre, where Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic
19 was present.
20 And now I can also answer the Judge's question. This might be a
21 problem with the interpretation, but what I said is the following: In this
22 meeting, Lieutenant Colonel Nikolic, considering everything that was going
23 on in the town and surrounding the town, said, verbatim, "Here," meaning
24 the town of Bosanski Samac, "There will be blood up to the knee level."
25 That is what he said. "They," that is to say those who will not do what
1 he wants from them, "Those people will have blood up to their knees."
2 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Thank you.
3 MR. WEINER:
4 Q. Let's talk about some of the documents that were shown to you by
5 Defence counsel.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic?
7 MR. PANTELIC: Well, Your Honours, I was very curious to follow
8 this line of examination, and I didn't object at the beginning. Number 1,
9 my belief that the re-direct cannot be conducted as such because these
10 events, these names, were never mentioned in cross-examination. My
11 learned friend from the Prosecution was in situation during
12 examination-in-chief to find out everything about these events after the
13 certain part of statement of this witness. He failed to do that. None of
14 the Defence counsel in cross-examination never raised that issue.
15 However, this was very interesting statement, although it's a fact that
16 it's not true, of course, but that's --
17 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I'm objecting. This is just a speech by
19 MR. PANTELIC: It's a matter of principle, Your Honour. If this
20 line of questioning in re-direct will be allowed, then I think that
21 Defence counsel, Defence team, should be allowed for the limited issue to
22 go to re-cross, because of the well-known standards that we have here.
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Weiner?
24 MR. WEINER: Your Honours, with regard to Radovan Karadzic, that
25 issue got raised on cross-examination while Mr. Pisarevic cross-examined
1 this witness. I was surprised that he started to mention it, that not
2 only was there a meeting at the local commune or the memorial hall
3 involving Colonel Nikolic but there was another meeting involving
4 Radovan Karadzic. Since they brought the testimony out, what I'm allowed
5 to do on re-direct examination is to clarify, modify, further explanation,
6 and also examine issues which are raised on cross-examination. Since they
7 opened the issue, since they opened the door, I'm allowed to follow in,
8 and that's exactly what I'm doing here. They've raised the issue. I've
9 briefly gotten out -- I've briefly introduced through this witness or I've
10 just asked questions about this witness about something that was said on
11 cross-examination. And that's all I've done, which is proper.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
13 MR. PANTELIC: I think --
14 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please to the counsel.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: The microphone?
16 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour it would be appropriate that my
17 colleague would respond because I was not mentioned in this context.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: But Mr. Pantelic, Mr. Weiner has accepted and the
19 Trial Chamber is of the view that the Prosecution is in order. That's
21 Mr. Pisarevic?
22 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just with regard to
23 what my learned colleague of the Prosecution has said, I have never asked
24 a question in my cross-examination that had to do with a meeting where
25 Radovan Karadzic was present. To my question why Mr. Fitozovic did not
1 respond to his call-up, because he was supposed to go together, he said
2 the following, "How can I respond to the call-up because Radovan Karadzic
3 was in Samac in December?" This is the only time the witness mentioned
4 Radovan Karadzic being in Samac and I did not ask any further
5 questions about this in my cross-examination, and I don't think this is a
6 basis for this kind of questioning to be pursued because I never asked the
7 witness anything about the presence of Radovan Karadzic in Samac. Thank
9 MR. WEINER: And the witness said further that recruitment of
10 Muslims and Croats were affected after Radovan Antic -- I'm sorry, Radovan
11 Karadzic spoke.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: And that is page?
13 MR. WEINER: I will get the page, if you want. I'm sorry, I
14 didn't bring it with me. We've had five days of cross-examination.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber is of the view that the
18 Prosecution is in order to re-examine along the lines that Mr. Weiner has
19 taken because the record is clear as to what issues were raised during
20 cross-examination by the Defence.
21 Mr. Weiner, you can continue.
22 MR. WEINER: Thank you. Just prior to the objection, we were
23 moving on to discuss some of the documents and I'd like to briefly discuss
24 a few of the documents.
25 Q. I'm going to try and do this to speed things up and see if we can
1 do that without having you examine the documents again, but just refer to
2 them because I think some of them you were very familiar with. You were
3 shown document P67 ter ID which is -- and there was a similar document,
4 D50/3 for ID, and if you recall, P67 was the one that you swam -- you put
5 in a plastic bag and swam over the river with. And P50 was the one that
6 you claim to be a forgery. Why do you believe that D50/3 for ID, that
7 document was a forgery or had a forged signature? Please tell the Court
8 why you believe it to be a forgery.
9 A. I can claim it with certainty, for the command, town command, I
10 didn't consider myself competent to sign that document, nor did I have the
11 stamp. In the SDA party, nobody had the competence to sign this document.
12 They were in doubt who should sign that document. And below it, you had
13 neither the names of Tihic nor of Izet Izetbegovic or anybody else. As I
14 remember, it's the city board of SDA. There was the stamp. And that was
15 the original which I took and I swam across. There is no dilemma about
16 that. And it is -- there is no dilemma that it was a forged signature.
17 Q. Thank you.
18 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, just for the record, at page 50, line
19 10, it says P50.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
21 MR. WEINER: And the one you claim was a forgery, why do you
22 believe D50/3, it should read not "P50" but "D50," "D" as in "dog."
23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it's P50. It should be D50/3?
24 MR. WEINER: Yes, D50/3 is the one that he claims to be a forgery.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
1 MR. WEINER:
2 Q. Just very briefly, you were shown a newspaper clipping from
3 Oslobodenje concerning some prisoner exchanges in 1991. Do you recall
4 that, first, being shown by Defence counsel that newspaper article?
5 A. Yes, I recall that.
6 Q. And had you ever seen that newspaper article previously?
7 A. No. Yesterday, I saw it for the first time.
8 Q. And that newspaper article, which discussed the exchanges in 1991
9 in Bosanski Samac, concerned exchanges of prisoners of war, isn't that
11 A. Yes. The article spoke of the exchange of POWs, prisoners of war.
12 Q. And there was nothing in that article about exchanges involving
13 civilians and women and children and elderly, was there, sir?
14 A. No.
15 Q. If we could move on, could the witness be shown document "D" as in
16 "dog" 34/1 ID ter?
17 THE REGISTRAR: May I clarify that this is indeed D34/1? It was
18 admitted yesterday.
19 MR. WEINER: Sorry.
20 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you.
21 MR. WEINER:
22 Q. Now, sir, on -- during cross-examination, you admitted that you
23 had drawn or drafted that document; is that correct?
24 A. Yes. I said that I drafted that document.
25 Q. And you indicated that there was an accompanying document of text
1 which was missing?
2 A. Yes. This is only a part of this document, and the text is
4 Q. Since the text is missing, please tell the Court why was that
5 document drafted and what does it concern?
6 A. This document refers to the -- in case of outbreak of war and war
7 operations, and the instruction contains when and if this will be
8 implemented at all, this, what is drawn here on this document.
9 Q. And please tell us what is it a plan to do? What were you going
10 to do?
11 A. This plan included the building on the left side, you can see, a
12 part of CCA 300 metres of long distance transmission lines, and that had
13 to be built in view of the fact that this transformer station, Batkusa,
14 was located in a Serbian -- in a Serb village close to Obudovac, where the
15 paramilitary units were stationed. So these were units which arrived from
16 Serbia and so on. It was to be assumed that the electricity supply would
17 be cut off near Domaljevac. So here where you can see Brvnik, Domaljevac,
18 this is the long distance transmission line, carrying electricity to the
19 Croatian village of Domaljevac. And here you can see the construction of
20 this long distance transmission line which had to be erected so that the
21 Croatian villages of Domaljevac, Grebnice, Tursinovac, Novo Selo, could be
22 supplied with electricity.
23 Q. Can you place it on the ELMO and please show the Court what you're
24 referring to? Let me ask you just a simple question without getting into
25 all this electrical technology. Were you going to cut or destroy the
1 power line that went to the Serb paramilitaries, to stop the power from
2 going to the Serb paramilitaries?
3 A. Yes. But in the text, it was also written when that would be
4 carried out.
5 Q. And could you just show the Court what you were referring to, the
6 power stations and things?
7 A. This transformer station was in the Serbian village of Batkusa and
8 it supplied electric power Brvnik, Slatina, Obudovac. These were all
9 local communes with a Serb population. And from this station, electricity
10 was also supplied to Domaljevac, Grebnice, Tursinovac, Croat villages. So
11 in addition to the destruction in this area, what was planned was to erect
12 long distance transmission line, and this to the approximately 300 metres.
13 Or to be quite precise, what it's all about: In case the power was cut,
14 in this transformer station, so that Domaljevac and other Croat villages
15 would remain without electricity, in that case, we -- this would be
16 toppled and cut here so that the power supply wouldn't flow towards the
17 transformer station, and nobody would have electricity. Here, you can see
18 the building as well as the severing, the cutting. The destruction was
19 foreseen at a later stage if electricity would be cut off for the Croat
20 villages, then in that case, the destruction would take place. That is
21 what contained that text, and which is missing here.
22 Q. So it was your plan to cut power to the JNA and the paramilitaries
23 and, if power was further cut to the villages, you were going to reconnect
24 it with some sort of 300 metre line? Is that basically what you were
25 planning to do?
1 A. Basically, the plan was, if the Serbs cut off electricity supply
2 to Domaljevac, here the destruction would take place towards these Serb
3 villages. So this was linked. Therefore, in -- if in Batkusa the
4 electricity is cut, will cut off electricity for the Croat villages, then
5 electricity supply would be cut off to the Serb villages, too.
6 Q. Okay. Let us move on.
7 MR. WEINER: Does the Court have any questions on that document
8 before we move on?
9 JUDGE MUMBA: No.
10 MR. WEINER: Thank you. You can remove that.
11 Q. You were questioned by counsel, Mr. Pantelic, about an indication
12 or a statement within your ten page statement or nine page statement, a
13 comment you made within your nine page statement, where you admitted
14 saying something to Simo Zaric which was a lie or an exaggeration. Now,
15 in a court of law, you swear to tell the truth. In wartime or a pre-war
16 situation, is deception used when dealing with an enemy?
17 A. In my statement, when I said "lie," I told the truth in my
18 statement. It was a lie in the sense of tactics, because also the
19 defendant stated there would be no conflict. He stated that at the
20 meeting. But it occurred two or three hours later. That was also a lie.
21 So it's all within the framework of a military -- of military tactics.
22 Q. And when you said the defendant said that, you were referring to
23 Simo Zaric lying at that same meeting on April 16th, 1992?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, moving on, you were questioned about the incident at the Cafe
1 Molla. When that vehicle arrived, where were you? Where were you
3 A. I was within Cafe Molla, inside, directly vis-a-vis the
4 automobile, the vehicle. I saw the entire length of the vehicle and
5 everything that was happening five metres in front of me.
6 Q. Were you seated inside?
7 A. I was standing.
8 Q. And when the shooting started, did you drop to the floor or did
9 you run outside? What did you do?
10 A. At that moment, all of us fell to the floor, once there was the
11 burst of fire. And I just raised my head and saw that the vehicle moved
12 to the right. Then I went out and I could see where the vehicle stopped,
13 some 70 metres further down from this cafe.
14 Q. And having dropped to the floor, were there portions of the
15 incident that you were unable to see?
16 A. I believe that I had seen everything except those patrols which
17 were outside. I didn't see them.
18 Q. Okay. Now, during this six to seven month period that you had
19 that independent police -- that independent military unit, other than this
20 incident where someone tried to assassinate you or had plans to
21 assassinate you and there was a shooting, was there any other incident
22 involving shootings in relation to your unit?
23 A. I would ask you to repeat the question.
24 Q. Sure. We just talked about this incident which occurred late
25 March, early April, this shooting incident that had occurred that you just
1 testified about at the Cafe Molla. Other than that one incident, during
2 the six to seven month period that you had your independent military unit,
3 were there any other shootings or incidents involving violence, relating
4 to your unit?
5 A. Yes. During the course of these six months, particularly at the
6 beginning of 1992, from January to April, there was a lot of shooting in
7 town, in the different neighbourhoods of the town.
8 Q. But were any of these shootings involving your military unit?
9 Were they out shooting, were they involved in any of these shootings?
10 A. No, no. They were never there shooting.
11 Q. So the only incident involving your military unit was that
12 incident that occurred at the Cafe Molla?
13 A. One couldn't put it that way. In that incident, this unit did not
14 participate, this independent unit did not participate in that incident.
15 The parties involved in the incident were members of the 4th Detachment
16 and the members of the reserve police force.
17 Q. Therefore, your independent military unit was never involved in a
18 shooting incident in a six to seven month period; is that correct?
19 A. No, it never participated.
20 Q. And finally, there was some discussion at the end of
21 cross-examination concerning your termination of employment in 1991. Have
22 you ever received a notice of your termination of employment from the
23 electrical power plant?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And when did you receive that notice?
1 A. I received it a month ago.
2 Q. So your notice of termination in 1991 was received almost 11 years
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Now, you indicated that there was an incident in 1985, 1986, where
6 a power station or a power line had burnt?
7 A. That's right.
8 Q. Now, all the years after that, 1987 through the end of 1991, after
9 that incident of the power line, did you continue to serve as a supervisor
10 over 52 people or 52 employees at that company?
11 A. Yes. From that event to the 24th of December, 1991, I was working
12 and occupying the same position. I was supervisor of the technical
13 operations unit with 52 workers. So within the company, I wasn't
14 disciplined, nor was I replaced.
15 Q. In your current position, are you currently working in a similar
16 position as a supervisor of a power plant?
17 A. Yes. Now I am director of the electrical supply company,
18 Domaljevac Samac, Domaljevac unit.
19 MR. WEINER: Thank you. No further questions.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you, Mr. Fitozovic, for giving your evidence
21 at the Tribunal. You're now finished and you can go.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
23 [The witness withdrew]
24 MR. LAZAREVIC: The witness left his bag.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: The witness left his bag, Mr. Usher.
1 Yes, Mr. Lukic?
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I wanted to utilise this
3 break concerning the yesterday's motion of the Prosecution. I also wanted
4 to introduce the official translations of certain documents. I don't know
5 shall we do it now, prior to the introduction of the next witness, or at
6 the end of the day.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Since you have the documents ready with you, can we
8 have them?
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. I prepared two documents. One
10 is the document on which we dwelt last week. It was D40/3. The problem
11 which arose was the B/C/S version was one-sheet document and the
12 translation had two pages. Also, the B/C/S version, in fact, had only one
13 page translated. I also -- it was a document we introduced with the
14 witness Mehinovic Kemal.
15 Now, this has the identification as D40/3 ter ID.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic. We have now got the entire
17 translation and the complete documents.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Yes. It's a complete document in the
19 B/C/S version, and a complete translation. I would tender it as evidence
20 because up until now it had only the ID number.
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Any objection from the Prosecution?
22 MS. REIDY: Yes, Your Honour. I think the Prosecution find
23 themselves in an unusual position because -- I appreciate that what
24 happened was of course no design whatsoever on behalf of the Defence but
25 we did not receive the second page of this document until now.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: So you need time to look at it?
2 MS. REIDY: No, Your Honour. What flows from that, though, is
3 that -- I was advised last week that there was a second page to it. It's
4 just that now we have actually been handed this. So that that's not my
5 problem about time, but the issue remains that we had first objected on a
6 number of grounds, one of them being that this document had no source or
7 signature or anything like that. That element now is somewhat mitigated
8 because we can see, on the second page, a name and a signature. So we can
9 see who purported -- who purports to be the author of this document.
10 However, this document as it stands now was not put to the
11 witness, either, indeed, Kemal Mehinovic, through whom this was originally
12 discussed, or I think the following witness also discussed it. He was a
13 protected witness, Witness E. And just in terms of the name, the
14 commander, it was not exactly the same document that was put to them. So
15 I feel it may be a little bit inappropriate now to make it a full document
16 in evidence when in fact the witness, at the time when it was discussed
17 and everything, only had knowledge of and discussed the first page and did
18 not discuss the complete document. And in fact, as it happened, neither
19 witness had ever seen this document or was able to assist on any
20 clarification about the nature of this document. Any information about it
21 came purely from counsel.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
23 MS. REIDY: I appreciate it's nothing to do with -- unfortunately,
24 there was nothing, as I said, by design by my learned colleague on Defence
25 but I do feel we would not be happy at this stage, it being full evidence
1 until we have some witness who --
2 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please slow down.
3 MS. REIDY: I'm sorry. We would not be happy having it admitted
4 fully into evidence until we have some witness who can at least see the
5 whole document, perhaps shed some light on it and answer some questions,
6 with the full document being available to the Bench and to the witness and
7 to the Prosecution.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Mr. Lukic, I think the Trial Chamber
9 agrees with the Prosecution.
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I fully agree. My learned colleague
11 has already informed me that this would be the position of the OTP. I
12 would just like to remind everybody that the document I received is a part
13 of the Tribunal file, of the court file, in Bijeljina, and I'm going to
14 prove the authenticity of the entire document during the Defence case, and
15 I don't think this will be a problem in my case. But, for now, I agree
16 that this document should only keep an ID number.
17 The second document is D16/3 ter ID. I have also received an
18 official translation in the meantime for this document. This was a
19 protected witness, and therefore I would like to ask that his name not be
20 mentioned in our discussion.
21 The verdict of the supreme military court, May 31, 1993.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic, we have the translation.
23 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think if the Prosecution has no
24 objections, I would like to tender it into evidence.
25 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I'm sorry, we were unaware that this was
1 going to be moved into evidence today so we would just like to check that
2 there was no other outstanding issue apart from the translation. If that
3 is the only outstanding matter, of course, we have is no objection but I
4 would just like to say we can inform you immediately after the next break.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Later, okay. Yes?
6 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have no further documents. I would
7 only like to use this opportunity, Your Honours, to say that if the
8 Defence is required to say something about the proposal made yesterday by
9 the Prosecution that Kemal Bobic be asked to testify, that it is the
10 position of the Defence - and I'm talking about on behalf of all the
11 Defence counsel - it is our position that we object or oppose to this
12 proposal, and I can say it now, something about what my learned colleague
13 Weiner said yesterday, but if it is necessary to submit a written
14 document, then we can do that later. But the issue is whether the
15 Prosecution needs to add more to what Mr. Weiner said yesterday or not.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: But what is the basis of your objection?
17 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is what the
18 objection is about. It has to do both with legal and factual things.
19 First of all, there are two defences here that have to do with
20 reciprocal disclosure and, therefore, we were supposed to receive
21 everything from the Prosecution before.
22 Second of all, it is clear that in accordance with 73 bis(D) the
23 Prosecutor can, after the beginning of the trial, if they deem it
24 necessary, and if it is in the interests of justice, submit a request to
25 again accept the original list of witnesses.
1 In this concrete case, the facts are as follows: In the Pre-Trial
2 Conference, the Trial Chamber suggested to the OTP to reduce the list, the
3 number of witnesses. Based on this suggestion - and this was not a
4 decision - the OTP, in its brief of July 6th, gave -- did not -- decided
5 not to call the witness Kemal Bobic and some other witnesses.
6 Now the OTP is suggesting to call this witness, and the
7 explanation being that he was -- this would be a cumulative testimony as
8 well as Esad Cosic, who was already on the list relating to the same
9 facts, and also that this was -- this would enable the testimony of
10 Ediba Bobic, who is in poor health. On the other hand, Esad Cosic will
11 not be talking about the same things as Kemal Bobic. They were detained
12 in different institutions. Kemal Bobic was in Batkovic until 1994, and
13 his testimony is cumulative and has to do with the -- with the testimonies
14 of witnesses that had already testified and those are also some of the
15 people that were exchanged with him. On the other hand, the health of
16 Ediba Bobic could not be in the interest of justice and be cause for a
17 witness to be called. If this health situation is so bad, this could not
18 be the reason for this man to be called to witness -- to testify,
19 especially because she was only suggested under the Rule 92 bis and it is
20 an issue whether she will be called at all. But in the interests of
21 justice, the Trial Chamber can allow for another witness to be called.
22 The interest of justice is here totally on the side of the defendants,
23 because from July 6 onwards, the statement of this witness from a
24 previous trial was put ad acta.
25 And now there are efforts to again call a completely new
1 witness and in this way limit the rights from the Article 21 of the
2 Statute, and the reasons which are being named by the Prosecution have
3 nothing to do with the interests of justice. Therefore, I think that this
4 could not be put into any relation with Omer Nalic and Ibro Taletovic that
5 the Prosecution will not call, because those are only reasons that are
6 known to the Prosecution why they decided not to call these witnesses.
7 And this witness is going to be providing cumulative evidence, that is the
8 same as the evidence of the witnesses that have already been called.
9 Therefore, the Defence does not agree with the suggestion.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will consider the matter and make
13 a ruling at a later stage.
14 Can we have the next witness, please?
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Maybe the defendants could exchange
16 places in accordance with your procedures?
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The defendants can change places. Yes. That
18 has been done.
19 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour. Also on this matter which we
20 just discussed, the Prosecution is a little bit taken aback because the
21 indication that we got from the Defence when we first raised this matter
22 with them was a completely different position from what we've just heard.
23 So I would like to take the opportunity to just file a written document
24 in response, a short, brief one, setting out our position as to why we
25 want to call this witness and our complete circumstances, because I think
1 that now, in light of what we've heard, which was, as I said, not what we
2 were expecting from the Defence, that we would just like to make our
3 position and all the facts clear to the Trial Chamber.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Then you may put in a written motion.
5 MS. REIDY: Thank you very much.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The witness can be brought into the
8 [The witness entered court]
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Can the witness make the solemn declaration?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
11 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 WITNESS: JELENA KAPETANOVIC
13 [Witness answered through interpreter]
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please sit down.
15 Yes, the Prosecution, examination-in-chief?
16 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honours.
17 Examined by Ms. Reidy:
18 Q. Good afternoon. Could I ask you to state your full name for the
19 record, please?
20 A. My name is Jelena Kapetanovic.
21 Q. Thank you. Could you please tell the Court your date and place of
23 A. I was born on April 4th, 1957, in Gradacac, in the hospital.
24 Q. Gradacac is in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina; is that
1 A. Yes, that's correct.
2 Q. And then I understand that your family in fact come from Slavonski
3 Samac; is that correct?
4 A. Yes. My family has been living in Croatia for a long time,
5 although they originally come from Bosnia. However, they have been living
6 in Croatia for many years.
7 Q. And you yourself are of Croatian ethnicity?
8 A. Yes, I am Croat.
9 Q. And did you spend your childhood in Slavonski Samac?
10 A. Yes. I spent my entire childhood up until 1977 in Slavonski
12 Q. And in 1977, where did you move to?
13 A. In 1977?
14 Q. Yes. You said you spent your entire childhood until 1977 in
15 Slavonski Samac. And then after you left Slavonski Samac, where did you
17 A. I started secondary school in Osijek.
18 Q. And Osijek is also in Croatia?
19 A. Yes, Osijek is also in Croatia. I have a remark. There is an
20 error regarding this year.
21 Q. Yes. You can correct it for us.
22 A. I lived in Slavonski Samac until 1972. That's when I left Samac.
23 Q. Okay. Thank you. So not 1977, but you left Slavonski Samac in
25 A. Yes, that's correct.
1 Q. After attending secondary school in Osijek in Croatia, did you
2 then move to Bosanski Samac?
3 A. Yes. I lived in Bosanski Samac in the meantime as well as a
4 student, as an intern.
5 Q. And while you were in Bosanski Samac as an intern, where was the
6 place of your study?
7 A. It was a catering school in Osijek.
8 Q. Thank you. Did you marry in Bosanski Samac?
9 A. Yes. I married in Bosanski Samac in 1973.
10 Q. And what was the name of your husband who you married in 1973?
11 A. His name was Slobodan Stanisic.
12 Q. And which ethnicity was he?
13 A. My husband was a Serb.
14 Q. And was your husband from Bosanski Samac municipality?
15 A. Yes. He was from Bosanski Samac municipality, from Donja Slatina.
16 Q. Thank you. I understand, then, that your first husband,
17 Slobodan Stanisic, he died in 1989; is that correct?
18 A. Yes, my husband died that year.
19 Q. And did you continue to use his surname up until you remarried?
20 A. Yes. I had no reason to change my last name.
21 Q. So in 1992, did you go by the name of Jelena Stanisic?
22 A. Yes, that's correct.
23 Q. Thank you. After you finished your studies in Osijek and you said
24 they were for a catering course, did you then work in Bosanski Samac for
25 some time?
1 A. Yes, that's true.
2 Q. Where were you working in Bosanski Samac?
3 A. I worked at the hotel Plaza in Bosanski Samac.
4 Q. And what was your job at the hotel?
5 A. I was a receptionist for a longer time, and then later, I opened
6 up a tourist bureau and I worked there as well.
7 Q. Did these two professions bring you in contact with a lot of
8 people in the municipality of Bosanski Samac?
9 A. Yes, with a lot of people.
10 Q. Were you still in this job in 1992 or had you stopped working?
11 A. No. That year, I wasn't working.
12 Q. And just for the record, when exactly did you stop working?
13 A. In 1988.
14 Q. And was that by your own choice?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Thank you. In -- I'm going to talk about now 1992. In 1992, were
17 you living in the apartment which you had shared with your husband
18 Slobodan Stanisic in Bosanski Samac?
19 A. Yes. I was still living in that apartment.
20 Q. And were you there by yourself or were you living with your
21 current husband, Mr. Kapetanovic?
22 A. At that time, my boyfriend and I were living together in my
24 Q. And Mr. Kapetanovic, which ethnic background does he hold?
25 A. He is Muslim.
1 Q. Thank you. I'm going to ask you now about people from Bosanski
2 Samac, and the first person is a Dr. Blagoje Simic. Do you know
3 Dr. Blagoje Simic from Bosanski Samac?
4 A. Yes. I had a chance to see him, and I was also his patient once
5 or twice.
6 Q. Did you know anything -- did you know whether or not he was
7 politically active?
8 A. Yes, I knew that.
9 Q. And what exactly did you know about his political activity?
10 A. I knew that he was politically very active, that he was one of the
11 leaders of the 4th Detachment.
12 Q. Do you know which political party he was associated with?
13 A. Yes. I knew that.
14 Q. Could you tell the Court?
15 A. SDS.
16 Q. Thank you. Mrs. Kapetanovic, could I ask you to look around the
17 courtroom today and if you see the Blagoje Simic that you just described
18 to the courtroom, could you please tell the Court where he's sitting?
19 A. All right. Mr. Blagoje Simic, that is to say Dr. Simic, is
20 sitting on my left, towards the windows. He is the first next to the
21 policeman who is on my right.
22 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, I think the record could reflect that
23 Mr. Simic has been correctly identified.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
25 MS. REIDY:
1 Q. I now turn to it a second gentleman by the name of Miroslav Tadic.
2 Are you familiar with Miroslav Tadic from Bosanski Samac?
3 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
5 MR. PANTELIC: I tried to understand when I reading this
6 transcript. Could the witness, with a more specific details, can
7 describe Mr. Blagoje Simic? Otherwise, you know, window, left, right,
8 guards, it's a little confusing.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: That was understood by the Trial Chamber.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. I agree.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: You can proceed, Ms. Reidy.
12 MS. REIDY: Thank you.
13 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, I asked you about a Miroslav Tadic. Are you
14 familiar with a Miroslav Tadic from Bosanski Samac?
15 A. Yes. I know Mr. Miroslav Tadic.
16 Q. Could you tell the Court whether you know him well or not, and if
17 so, how well you know him?
18 A. We weren't family friends but we knew each other quite well. By
19 this, I mean that I had the opportunity to see him quite frequently.
20 Q. Did you ever have any contact with him whilst you were operating
21 this tourist agency?
22 A. Yes. I also had an opportunity to see him there, and I am also
23 referring to the high school location, considering the fact that
24 Miroslav Tadic worked there. I went by his office quite frequently.
25 Q. You said that Miroslav Tadic used to work at the high school and
1 you went to his office quite frequently. What caused you to go to his
2 office at this time when he was working in the high school?
3 A. At that time, I cooperated with everybody, and I also worked at
4 the high school. I mean professional cooperation.
5 Q. Is it like organising school tours and trips and things like that?
6 Is that what you mean?
7 A. Yes, that's exactly what I mean.
8 Q. Again, could I ask you to look around this courtroom and if you
9 see the Miroslav Tadic you've been talking about here today, then describe
10 to the bench where he's sitting.
11 A. All right. Yes. I know where he's sitting. He is sitting in the
12 same row, right next to Dr. Blagoje Simic. So if I'm looking at them from
13 the right, first the guard is sitting, then Blagoje Simic, and then
14 Mr. Miroslav Tadic.
15 MS. REIDY: Thank you. I think the record can reflect the
16 identification of Mr. Tadic.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
18 MS. REIDY:
19 Q. And, finally, a third person I'd like to ask you about is
20 Simo Zaric. Do you know Simo Zaric from Bosanski Samac, and if you do,
21 could you just explain the context in which you know Mr. Zaric?
22 A. Yes. I know Mr. Simo Zaric from Bosanski Samac. I know him as a
23 businessman and also as my neighbour. I mean my former neighbour.
24 Q. When you say you know him as a businessman, what -- what
25 employment was he in at the time when you knew him as a businessman?
1 A. First of all, I know him because of the fact that I worked as a
2 receptionist, and I had to report all the foreigners to the police. So he
3 was the chief of the SUP. And then I also know him from an entirely
4 different area. Across from my street, he worked at the company called
6 Q. Thank you. And as with the other two gentlemen we spoke about, if
7 you see Mr. Zaric here today, just advise the Bench where he's sitting.
8 A. All right. Yes. I see Mr. Simo Zaric here. He's sitting first
9 on -- from my left. So starting with the policeman, he is sitting right
10 between the policeman and Mr. Miroslav Tadic.
11 MS. REIDY: Thank you. And if the record could just reflect the
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
14 MS. REIDY:
15 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, you've just told the Court that Simo Zaric, you
16 also knew as your neighbour. Where were you living exactly in April,
18 A. I lived in Bosanski Samac, in Edvard Kardelj Street, in a
19 building, S62, entrance 2, apartment number 16.
20 Q. And when you say Simo Zaric was your neighbour, did he also have
21 an apartment in this block?
22 A. Yes. I said he was my neighbour. Mr. Simo Zaric lived in the
23 same street, in the same building, but in the fourth entrance.
24 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, I have a diagram drawn up to instruction
25 of the witness, just of her apartment block and the house and entrance.
1 This has been in issue before, and there is other uses I'd like to make of
2 this diagram, particularly events pertaining to the night of the 17th of
3 April, but it may be useful now if I just ask the witness to identify
4 where her house is and where she said the defendant's apartment is.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
6 MS. REIDY: These diagrams have been disclosed to Defence counsel.
7 I also have copies for the Bench here.
8 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, do you recognise the diagram that's on the
9 screen in front of you now?
10 A. Yes, I do. This is a diagram of the building that I lived in.
11 Q. And could I ask you to take a pen, which is, for the record, it
12 will be easier -- perhaps I could ask the usher if there is a thinner pen,
13 a blue pen, in the holder -- on it, there is a number of -- could I ask
14 you to mark -- I see there is a number 2 marked beside entrances to that
15 building. Is that the entrance to your apartment block?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Put an "A" just beside that.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. That's the entrance to your building; is that correct?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Could you just place a "B" beside the entrance to Simo Zaric's
23 A. [Marks]
24 Q. Thank you. That's sufficient for the moment. Perhaps we can just
25 leave this beside the witness because we will come back to, or if the
1 Bench prefers --
2 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number of the diagram?
3 THE REGISTRAR: It will be P68 ID, Your Honours.
4 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, my colleague has drawn the attention --
5 my attention to the fact that it's 12.30, and I understand that's the
6 scheduled time for our break.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We shall have a break until 10 minutes before
8 1.00, that is 12.50 hours.
9 --- Recess taken at 12.31 p.m.
10 --- On resuming at 12.52 p.m.
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, examination-in-chief continuing.
12 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honours.
13 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, before the break, you marked on a diagram where
14 the entrance to your apartment was in the block 62 and where the entrance
15 to Simo Zaric's apartment was in block 62. Did you have a good
16 observation, or could you well observe people who were coming and going
17 into that entrance which led to Simo Zaric's apartment?
18 A. Yes. I could observe for two reasons. The entrance -- my
19 entrance is close to the entrance of Mr. Simo Zaric, and my living-room
20 windows were on the same side where Simo Zaric's entrance was.
21 Q. Thank you. And in the month or so leading up to the 17th of
22 April, 1992, did you observe any increase in the amount of visitors or the
23 types of people coming to visit Simo Zaric?
24 A. Yes, yes. I noticed that.
25 Q. Could you tell the Chamber what exactly you observed?
1 A. I observed an increased amount of visitors on that entrance, the
2 movement of people who were members of the 4th Detachment.
3 Q. Did you ever see any of the defendants in this case going to visit
4 Mr. Simo Zaric? That would be either Blagoje Simic or Miroslav Tadic.
5 A. Yes. I did observe that.
6 Q. Did you observe both of them or either one of them?
7 A. I observed them a number -- rather frequently. I cannot say
8 whether they were coming together but they were arriving frequently.
9 Q. But you did see both Blagoje Simic and Miroslav Tadic going into
10 the apartment, the entrance of the apartment --
11 A. That is correct.
12 JUDGE WILLIAMS: In fact, that is what my question was going to
13 be, Ms. Reidy. I presume that we are going to find out not only that the
14 witness saw Mr. Simic and Mr. Tadic going into the entrance of the
15 apartment, but we also would need to know did she see them go into the
16 actual apartment of Mr. Simic, and if so, how.
17 MS. REIDY: Absolutely, Your Honour, I'm going to follow that
18 point up. And just for the record, I'm correcting Your Honour but I think
19 you mean the apartment of Mr. Zaric. It's just line 16 of the -- of page
21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Which line?
22 MS. REIDY: Sorry, line 16, page 74. I think it was just a slip
23 of the tongue to refer to the apartment of --
24 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Exactly, a slip of the tongue. I meant the
25 apartment of Mr. Simo Zaric.
1 MS. REIDY: That's what I understood you to mean, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, could you tell the Chamber did you see these
3 persons enter the entrance which led to Mr. Zaric's apartment or did you
4 actually see them enter Mr. Simo Zaric's apartment itself?
5 A. I must say that I only saw them entering the entrance number 4,
6 but I -- that I did not see them enter the apartment of Mr. Simo Zaric.
7 Q. So I take it you never followed any of these people when they went
8 up into entrance number 4?
9 A. No, no. I never did that. There were -- was never any need for
11 Q. So what is the reason that you believe that they were visiting
12 Mr. Simo Zaric?
13 MR. PANTELIC: Objection, Your Honour, calling for speculation.
14 MS. REIDY: Sorry, Your Honour, it's not speculation. I'm asking
15 the witness to explain her answer, to give her reasons for her belief.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: She has already said that, that she believed that
17 they were visiting Mr. Zaric. Did she say that?
18 MS. REIDY: I believe she said that on the record, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Because all we have is the identification of the
20 entrance to Mr. -- it's a common entrance, isn't it?
21 MS. REIDY: Okay, Your Honour, then I'll ask --
22 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, you've testified that you never followed these
23 visitors once they went past the entrance. Where do you believe that they
24 went after they entered entrance number 4?
25 A. In view of the fact that I know these gentlemen, that they are
1 good friends and members of the same party, of the same unit, it was
2 quite logical to me that they were going visiting Mr. Simo Zaric, because
3 the other inhabitants living there, dwellers, were not as interesting.
4 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Miss Reidy, again, if you could maybe clarify or
5 find out from the witness which floor, first of all, her apartment was
6 on; secondly, what floor, or did she know the floor that Mr. Simo Zaric's
7 apartment was on? And thirdly, whether it was possible, if she was
8 looking out of her window, to see not only the entrance to block number 4,
9 where Mr. Zaric's apartment was, but whether she would be able to see from
10 her window through his window anyone in the room or rooms.
11 MS. REIDY: Okay.
12 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, perhaps you could answer those questions in
13 exactly the order Her Honour asked them. Could you please first tell the
14 Chamber on which floor of your section of the apartment block your
15 apartment was located?
16 A. Yes. My apartment was located -- first we have the ground floor,
17 first floor, second floor. I was the third, on the third level, although
18 it was the second floor. The apartment of Mr. Simo Zaric was on the
19 fourth entrance. I don't know the apartment number, but if we take into
20 consideration that we begin with ground floor, he was on the third floor,
21 but it was the fourth landing.
22 Q. So I understand, then, that he was -- his apartment would have
23 been one level higher than yours; is that correct?
24 A. I believe it is correct. I must also add that I never visited
25 Mr. Simo Zaric.
1 Q. And did you have any sort of view at all from your apartment, the
2 living-room window you described, into any of the rooms of
3 Mr. Simo Zaric's apartment? Would you have been able to observe any
4 meeting going on there?
5 A. I never did this. I never looked in the direction of the floors
6 of Mr. Zaric's apartment except for the entrance.
7 Q. So just to be clear, you saw, amongst others, Miroslav Tadic and
8 Blagoje Simic come to the apartment block known as 62 Edvard Kardelj and
9 go into the fourth entrance which leads to, amongst others,
10 Mr. Simo Zaric's apartment? Is that a correct analysis of what you've
11 testified so far?
12 A. It is quite a correct analysis.
13 Q. Did you ever have any conversations --
14 JUDGE LINDHOLM: I have a question, straight to the witness:
15 Could you repeat more in detail who were the persons, other persons or
16 families living in the same entrance as Mr. Simo Zaric on the different
17 floors? Can you explain -- tell us?
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. At this point in time, I cannot
19 remember. Even at this point, I cannot remember the names of my
20 neighbours from the third entrance.
21 JUDGE LINDHOLM: From the fourth entrance?
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. But I stated that I cannot
23 remember the names of those who were even closer to me, because ten years
24 have passed since then, and I wasn't interested in these people any more.
25 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Okay. Thank you.
1 MS. REIDY:
2 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, did you ever, at the time, talk to any of your
3 other neighbours, maybe from your block or any other blocks, about whether
4 or not they had noticed what you describe as an increase of visits from
5 people going into entrance number 4 and was there any discussion about
6 things that were happening in -- what people believed to be happening in
7 Mr. Zaric's apartment?
8 A. Yes, quite frequently. This was very topical issue at the time.
9 Q. So could you please clarify for us what sort of things people were
10 commenting upon and then also with whom or which people were noticing the
11 things that you've described?
12 A. Most of the commentaries I could hear from my neighbours living at
13 the same entrance.
14 Q. And could you just give us an example of the sort of commentaries
15 that your neighbours, and you or your neighbours, would make to each other
16 in noticing what was going on?
17 A. Yes. It was the time of great political strife among the various
18 nationalities so that they would attract as many followers as possible.
19 We also knew -- I knew that the previously mentioned names, that they
20 belonged to the party SDS. I also knew that these three persons were
21 closely attached to the detachment that was known as 4th Detachment.
22 Similarly, we had the tenants who were from other parties, SDA, and it was
23 logical that verbally they also speculated, and big discussions.
24 Q. So is it correct to say that the increase of visitors to entrance
25 number 4 and the particular persons who were coming to that entrance gave
1 rise to certain discussion as to what was occurring, everybody believed to
2 be occurring in Mr. Zaric's apartment?
3 A. Yes, yes. It was precisely like that.
4 Q. Thank you. I'd like to ask you about another location in Bosanski
5 Samac. Are you familiar with the Cafe AS?
6 JUDGE LINDHOLM: I would like to put a question to the witness.
7 When you told us that there were discussions and perhaps rumours because
8 of the traffic into Mr. Zaric's apartment by Mr. Tadic and Mr. Simic, what
9 kind of discussions and -- did you have with your neighbours and other
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can answer that question.
12 All of those who were not of Serbian ethnicity, this was rather disturbing
13 because the climate throughout that period, about a month prior to the
14 war, was very tense. On a daily basis, Serb families were moving out, not
15 only from the town, I'm talking also about my building. In the evening,
16 only the non-Serb tenants would remain, and I shall explain why. All of
17 them had families and relatives in the neighbouring villages, while the
18 rest of the population remained in their homes. Everybody was preparing
19 for something that we were all feeling, and that was creating tremendous
20 tension in each individual, which includes also me.
21 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Thank you.
22 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour.
23 Q. Thank you for that explanation. Could I now ask you about Cafe
24 AS? Are you familiar with Cafe AS in Bosanski Samac?
25 A. Yes, yes, I know of it.
1 Q. Did you ever go to Cafe AS or did you have cause to pass by
2 Cafe AS on a regular basis in March and April, 1992?
3 A. Yes. Firstly, in order to get from the town to my home, I had to
4 pass along Cafe AS, so going to town and from town, it was the normal
5 route. The wife of Mr. Tadic had a shop, and I liked shopping. I must
6 say that I personally never was sitting as a patron in that cafe. The
7 cafe has a splendid terrace and all the guests liked sitting on that
8 terrace which is very close to the pavement, the sidewalk, along which I
9 was walking.
10 Q. Just one clarification of your last answer. You said the wife of
11 Mr. Tadic had a shop and you liked shopping. Do I understand you to mean
12 that Mr. Tadic's wife had a shop which was in the same proximity as the
13 cafe and that you used to frequent the shop and not the cafe?
14 A. Yes, yes. I liked buying in that shop, and if we look from the
15 direction I was coming, first there was the entrance to that shop, and
16 after that, the entrance to the cafe and the terrace.
17 Q. Thank you. In the time period March and April, 1992, did you ever
18 notice amongst the people who would sit on this terrace you've described,
19 people whom you didn't normally see around Bosanski Samac or did you
20 notice any particular, again, unusual activity in and around the
21 Cafe AS?
22 A. One could observe quite some novelty, quite a novel situation,
23 compared to this very small town we were living in.
24 Q. And what was, I guess, novel or unique about what you witnessed in
25 Cafe AS?
1 A. One could observe many people who would be sitting. I am speaking
2 of the terrace, not the inside premises of the cafe. It was always full
3 in the morning, afternoon hours, as well as in the evening. So that the
4 turnover of patrons had increased quite a bit. The age structure of these
5 guests was -- they were mainly middle-aged persons. I must admit that
6 also Catholics as well as Muslims were also there, but they were in fewer
7 numbers present, and many, many people of Serb ethnicity, I'm speaking of
8 those people that I know from Samac. The same way we could all -- I would
9 say there were also quite a number of new faces so that I don't know who
10 these people were, but I do know that they were all members of the 4th
12 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, you just said there were quite a number of new
13 faces, that you didn't know who they were but you did know that they were
14 all members of the 4th Detachment. Why do you conclude they were all
15 members of the 4th Detachment if you did not know who these people were?
16 A. I'm saying this today but I was talking about the events that took
17 place a long time ago, and the events that happened after that time frame
18 prove that these were all members of the 4th Detachment because I
19 recognised them in certain activities and operations that were undertaken
20 later by the 4th Detachment.
21 Q. So is it your testimony that these people who were gathering in
22 Cafe AS were the same people you saw later in military uniform, performing
23 functions on behalf of the 4th Detachment?
24 A. That's exactly what I'm saying.
25 Q. At the time, this is before the takeover, did you ever notice
1 whether those people had weapons with them when they were gathering or
2 whether there was any people in military uniform amongst them?
3 A. No. I never saw any personal weapons. By the way, I hate
4 weapons. I also did not notice any uniforms on these people.
5 Q. Thank you. But you saw them later, after the takeover, wearing
7 A. That's exactly right. Not just in uniforms but also carrying
9 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, you've mentioned now several times already in
10 your evidence a group called the 4th Detachment. What did you know of the
11 4th Detachment prior to the takeover of Bosanski Samac on the 17th of
12 April, 1992?
13 A. At that time, I would go out quite a lot. I mean I would go out
14 every night with my boyfriend to a cafe. And I have to mention here that
15 I'm not a nationalist, I never belonged to any party whatsoever. The same
16 goes for my husband. He was never a nationalist and he never belonged to
17 any party.
18 We were sitting in company with our joint friends and we had the
19 opportunity to discuss not nice things but who of us would be issued
20 weapons and what party they would belong to. The most popular party at
21 that time in our small town -- actually, it's not a party, it was an
22 association, that's what I call it. The most popular one was the 4th
23 Detachment. This was an organisation of people that called themselves the
24 4th Detachment. They tried in all possible ways to attract as many
25 members as possible. We all knew each other and we also knew who was a
1 member of the 4th Detachment.
2 Q. Did you know that the 4th Detachment was a military unit that
3 would carry arms?
4 A. At the same time, I knew that a lot of weapons were arriving in
5 Samac. I didn't see this personally, however. I knew that in the
6 villages, weapons were being distributed. Just before the war, in my
7 town, weapons were being distributed to a large extent. I assumed that
8 the weapon was coming from the army, that at least in our area, was mostly
9 Serb. When I'm saying this, I'm referring to the ethnic composition. I
10 personally never saw any weapons before the war.
11 Q. And from where did you obtain the information, then, that there
12 was large distribution of weapons going on, if you personally didn't see
14 A. I need to emphasise that at that time I lived with my boyfriend,
15 who was very young. He was of military age. And it was very hard for him
16 to avoid all these offers that he was made to get, to receive, to take
18 Q. Did your boyfriend, your then boyfriend, your now husband, did he
19 ever take a weapon or receive a weapon?
20 A. No. He never did that, not even during the general mobilisation.
21 Q. And to go back, you said that there was weapons coming from the
22 army, and that it was mainly going to ethnic Serbs. How did you hear that
24 A. I got that information from people with which I socialised at that
25 time. We talked about this topic at the Cafe Valentino.
1 Q. Your information came from conversations in the cafe that there
2 was widespread arming of predominantly the Serb population going on; is
3 that a correct understanding of your testimony?
4 A. Yes. That's exactly right.
5 Q. I'd like to ask you now about events on the 16th and 17th of
6 April. Were you at home on the evening of the 16th of April, 1992?
7 A. No. Unfortunately, I was not at home. That afternoon, until the
8 late evening, I was out fishing with my boyfriend. Had I been at home, I
9 would have gone to the cafe and I would not be sitting here today.
10 Q. I understand that on the 16th of April, you went fishing. After
11 you finished your fishing expedition, did you then return home to your
12 apartment at number 62, Edvard Kardelja Street?
13 A. Yes. In the evening hours, I went back to my apartment.
14 Q. And did you and your then boyfriend spend the night in the
15 apartment at 62 Edvard Kardelja Street?
16 A. Yes, unfortunately, we did.
17 Q. At some stage during that night, were you awoken by gunfire?
18 A. Yes. This was around 1.30. I didn't take a look at my watch at
19 the time.
20 Q. And could you tell me if you could observe any activity around the
21 streets at this time, at 1.30, or any activity within your apartment block
22 at this time, when you first woke up?
23 A. Yes. I was awoken by my husband, my then boyfriend, who told me,
24 "Jelena, get up. War has started." And I jumped out of bed and I heard
25 shooting. First, he told me to get dressed and that we should wait. You
1 could still hear shooting. And at that time, an ordinary person could get
2 very scared from those sounds. There was a lot of noise in my entranceway
3 at the same time. I found out that that was the beginning of something
4 that we call war.
5 Q. Did you then wait in your apartment block, in your apartment,
6 until you received some information as to what was going on outside?
7 A. Yes. I was dressed and I waited. In the meantime, my neighbours
8 were coming and there was general chaos going on. I would like to
9 emphasise once more that not a single one of us left the entranceway. In
10 the meantime, we heard different kinds of information through the phones.
11 This was a very long and very difficult night.
12 Q. You have a telephone in your apartment?
13 A. No. I did not have a telephone. I used the phone of my neighbour
14 who lived in the apartment above me. His name was Salko Porobic.
15 MS. REIDY: Your Honour, could you just give me one second?
16 [Prosecution counsel confer]
17 MS. REIDY: Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, if I could, I
18 would just like to introduce to the witness a second diagram, again drawn
19 on her instruction.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
21 MS. REIDY: I've left copies with the registrar for the Bench.
22 It's -- the diagram I intend to refer to at the moment has got the ERN in
23 the right-hand corner ending in the four numbers 9072.
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
25 MS. REIDY: Okay.
1 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, could I ask you to have a look at that diagram
2 that's been placed in front of you?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Does this diagram reflect the occupants of block number 2 of
5 62 Edvard Kardelja Street?
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lazarevic?
7 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, just a matter of clarification.
8 Here we see on the screen a diagram with number 070. It was left on the
9 ELMO for a certain reason. And now they are talking about some other
10 diagram that bears number 72. Just to be sure that we are all looking at
11 the same diagram maybe.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Ms. Reidy, can you just give us the full number of
13 the diagram we are supposed to be looking at?
14 MS. REIDY: 02199072. Counsel for Mr. Zaric is correct. The
15 other one had remained on the ELMO, and the witness now has the diagram
16 ending in 72 in front of her, and I'd ask her to now place it on the ELMO
17 now that she's correctly identified it, for the sake of the defendants.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the number for it, please?
19 THE REGISTRAR: Certainly, Your Honour. This is P68 ID. Thank
20 you. I correct myself: P69 ID. Thank you.
21 MS. REIDY:
22 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, I think from the diagram that's now in front of
23 us, we can see your apartment block on the left-hand side, described as
24 you said earlier, on the second floor of the building; is that correct?
25 A. Yes, that's correct, the third landing, second floor.
1 Q. And the neighbour who received some phone calls and information as
2 to what was happening was the neighbour living directly above you; is that
4 A. That's exactly right.
5 Q. What sort of information did you receive from your neighbour as to
6 what was going on outside?
7 A. The information that we received were extremely bad, very
8 difficult. I found out through my neighbours that there was fighting in
9 the town between the 4th Detachment, the special units, and the people who
10 were trying to save the town. Those were people belonging to the SDA
11 party. I also found out that there were dead, that there were wounded. I
12 found out that the primary school in Samac was on fire. I found out that
13 the first part of town directly to the cemetery was the one worst hit. I
14 know that this was a Muslim part of town.
15 It was also said that there was a slaughter going on. This is --
16 these information were something that I had never before heard in my
17 entire life. And I was informed that the same thing would also happen in
18 my neighbourhood very soon. Also, we were told that we were not allowed
19 to leave our apartments. We were told that we had to keep our doors open.
20 If the doors were to be locked or closed, then they would shoot at them
21 and the apartments would be entered in that way. We were also told that,
22 when they came, the first contact with this army had to be such that we
23 had to raise our arms and to have our legs mildly spread. The worst thing
24 of all was that we didn't know when all this would happen.
25 Q. Thank you Mrs. Kapetanovic. You obviously received a lot of
1 information. I'd like to clarify the sources of that information. The
2 information about the conflict outside, the wounded, the fire at the
3 primary school, did this information come through various telephone calls
4 received by Salko Porobic, or by Salko Porobic and others, or how did you
5 get that information about the conflicts outside and potential fatalities
6 and the fire at the primary school? Was that primarily from
7 Mr. Salko Porobic or from somebody else?
8 A. First of all, I would like to say that at the entrance 2 of the
9 S62 building, as you can see, there are five floors. At that time, there
10 were families in four floors, and three national -- three ethnic groups
11 who lived in these floors who were there at the time. So information
12 was --
13 Q. Mrs. Kapetanovic, could I just perhaps interrupt you because I
14 think that you're referring now to a diagram, and for the record, it will
15 be much clearer if you just answer the question I asked you first and then
16 we'll go back, using the diagram, and explain what you're now seeking to
17 clarify for the Bench. Okay? So could you please just answer first the
18 information about the conflict and, as I said, potential fatalities and
19 the fire in the primary school? Was that information from, amongst other
20 people, perhaps telephone calls that Salko Porobic received?
21 A. The information was coming from different directions, not -- I
22 didn't just get it from Salko Porobic. Everything I mentioned, I found
23 out from my neighbour, Mr. Tubakovic, that had to do with the orders that
24 were given. Those things that I found out about the victims, I found out
25 from the family called Halilovic, and Culumovic as well. So the
1 information was coming from different sources, from more people.
2 Q. Okay. Mrs. Kapetanovic, now perhaps I could get you to just look
3 at the diagram which has been identified as P69 ID. You've mentioned that
4 some of the information about the victims came from your neighbours
5 Halilovic. That is the Halilovics who lived opposite you on the same
6 floor; is that correct?
7 A. Yes. It was him.
8 Q. And that was a family of Muslim ethnicity?
9 A. Yes. They were a Muslim family. Mrs. Halilovic was from the
10 neighbourhood that I had mentioned before, the first neighbourhood that
11 was hit.
12 Q. And they told you they'd received a phone call with information
13 about what was going on outside; is that correct?
14 A. Yes. That's exactly right.
15 Q. You also mentioned the neighbours by the name of Culumovic; is
16 that correct? They also provided you with some information about victims?
17 A. Yes. That's exactly right. Mr. Culumovic lived -- had a mixed
18 marriage - he's Serb, his wife was Croatian - and he was receiving
19 information from both sides.
20 Q. Now, you also mentioned that -- I think you termed it "orders"
21 that you were told, that came from another neighbour by the name of
22 Tubakovic; is that correct?
23 A. Yes. That's right. Mr. Djordje Tubakovic told us how to
24 behave in certain situations that was going to happen to us.
25 Q. And to clarify for the record, what -- what ethnicity is
1 Mr. Djordje Tubakovic?
2 A. Mr. Djordje Tubakovic was Serb.
3 Q. What instructions did he pass on to you as to how you were to
5 A. He told us, I'm repeating, he said that the doors had to be open
6 the, that we had to let them inside, that we had to give them everything
7 they asked for, and that we had to lift our arms and keep our legs
8 slightly widened.
9 Q. And when he said that "We had to let them inside and give them
10 everything they asked for," et cetera, who was he referring to by the term
12 A. At the time, we all knew whom we were supposed to let in, because
13 the news that were arriving were saying that members of the 4th Detachment
14 and the special units were coming to liberate the town, and that they were
15 taking over the command.
16 Q. You've mentioned who the 4th Detachment were. The special units,
17 what did you understand the special units to be?
18 A. Up until that moment, I had no idea what these special units could
19 be. I just heard that there was a lot of people with Ekavian dialects
20 moving around our town, and we assumed that these were these special
21 people or special units.
22 Q. And these Ekavian dialects, do they tend to indicate that someone
23 comes from Serbia proper?
24 A. Yes. In our small town, we all spoke similarly, with the
25 Ijekavian dialect or the Bosnian dialect, and there were no
1 characteristics present in our language that could be found in Serbia.
2 Q. Whilst you were waiting at some stage, did these people who you
3 were expecting come to your apartment block, these 4th Detachment and
4 special units?
5 A. Yes. They finally showed up. We could see them through the
6 windows of my room. I said it was my living-room. It was facing the yard
7 and the entrance of the building.
8 Q. And were any of the defendants accompanying these people who
9 arrived in front of your building?
10 A. At that moment, I didn't know about it, but later, I had the
11 opportunity, one of the defendants standing by my entranceway.
12 Q. And which defendant was that?
13 A. Mr. Miroslav Tadic.
14 MS. REIDY: Your Honours, it's 13.45.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 0900
17 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at
18 1.45 p.m., to be reconvened on Wednesday,
19 the 5th day of June, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.