1 Tuesday, 25 February 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The witness entered court]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 2.17 p.m.
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. Case number IT-95-9-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic, and Simo Zaric.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Pantelic.
10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Your Honour, I do apologise to my learned
11 friend. Just very brief issue I would like to address the Trial Chamber
12 with regard to yesterday's transcript, which I think it's quite important
13 for the interest of the Defence in terms of procedural issues, if you
14 permit me just to briefly address the Trial Chamber with the issue.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
16 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. Your Honour, yesterday, during the
17 cross-examination of my learned friend Mr. Di Fazio, I objected to certain
18 questions. Actually, it could be find under yesterday's transcript
19 LiveNote version page 50, and accordingly, 51. My learned friend, after
20 my objection on line 18, said, inter alia, that -- I will quote him:
21 "Firstly, if Your Honours please, I believe that the task of objecting to
22 any questions on my part lies with Mr. Lukic and not with Mr. Pantelic."
23 And then you gave certain instructions with that regard. The
24 position of the Defence of -- I'm speaking on behalf of all three teams,
25 because we have discussed that issue -- is the following: Due to the
1 nature of the case, which is a joinder by its nature, sometimes there are
2 certain, I would say, various and different approaches to certain issue,
3 and after 175 days of proceedings in this particular case, we are very
4 well aware that during all these previous days we were entitled to object,
5 no matter which witness is in the dock, and strictly limited to the scope
6 of the indictment, of the charges, and also in accordance with the
7 strategy of particular defence of one team, which in practice means that
8 when my learned friend ask Mr. Tadic with regard to the political
9 prisoners, my basis for objection was that since my client, Mr. Blagoje
10 Simic, was also charged in count 1 of the indictment with the coercion,
11 arrest, et cetera, that it might be of certain impact to the defence of my
12 client. So I kindly ask for the instructions with that regard, if the
13 situation in future will arise, I believe that each of Defence teams could
14 object to certain line of questioning which is strictly related to his
15 particular client and his particular defence. I believe that my
16 understanding is correct.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber is of the view that there
19 has to be some order in the manner the proceedings are conducted, and the
20 Trial Chamber is of the view that each accused person has got two counsel
21 who are supposed to work together and assist each other during
22 examination-in-chief, cross-examination, examination by other counsel, and
23 re-examination, and the Trial Chamber believes that that is sufficient.
24 However, the Trial Chamber is flexible. If there is any piece of evidence
25 which is of particular concern to another accused, then, with the leave of
1 the Trial Chamber, counsel may be allowed to ask questions or to object in
2 this case, but it has to be with the leave of the Chamber, because there
3 has to be some order. And also, when an accused is giving evidence, the
4 Trial Chamber has to be very, very careful that his attention is not
5 distracted, and the Trial Chamber believes that only his counsel has gone
6 in details with his instructions and is much better able to object. So
7 those points must be borne in mind so that we have some order, and also
8 the attention of the accused person is not distracted.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour, for your instructions.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: We'll proceed.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. If Your Honours please, may I just
12 raise one very brief matter --
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: -- before I proceed? Last week some 92 bis
15 statements were provided to the Prosecution of certain witnesses, and the
16 Prosecution has not yet filed a response. May I seek an extension of time
17 in which to file the response to those 92 bis witnesses, to the close of
18 business on Thursday afternoon? This, unfortunately, has come about
19 because of Prosecution involvement in the preparing for this particular
20 cross-examination. I regret it, but I submit that it won't greatly affect
21 the overall schedule of the trial or prejudice the rights of the Defence
22 if you grant us an extension of time until Thursday close of business.
23 And so may I orally make that application and seek permission to put in a
24 response to those statements by then.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: You mean Thursday, the 26th or the 27th of February?
1 This week?
2 MR. DI FAZIO: This week. This week. This Thursday, close of
4 JUDGE MUMBA: 27th. Okay. Any objection from the Defence? I see
5 none. The extension is granted. The motion is granted to extend the time
6 within which the Prosecution may respond to statements taken under Rule 92
7 bis, and the time is extended up to Thursday this week, which is the 27th
8 of February, by 1730 hours.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honours.
10 WITNESS: MIROSLAV TADIC [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 MR. DI FAZIO: May I proceed?
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Cross-examination may proceed.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]
15 Q. Mr. Tadic, yesterday you said that as chief of civilian
16 protection, you're responsible for the protection of cultural monuments.
17 You agree, don't you, that the Catholic church -- sorry. I withdraw that.
18 You agree, don't you, that of the three cultural -- sorry, religious
19 monuments in Bosanski Samac, the orthodox church, the mosque, and the
20 Roman Catholic church, two were destroyed?
21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Di Fazio.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
23 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think we should be aware, of course, that in
24 the fifth amended indictment, the reference to "religious and cultural
25 institutions" was added in as an amendment in the fifth amended
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
3 JUDGE WILLIAMS: We should also be aware in terms of your
4 cross-examination that in the Trial Chamber's written reasons for
5 motion - sorry - for decision on motions for acquittal, dated 11th
6 October, 2002, that this Trial Chamber decided that in paragraph 6 on page
7 8, that the destruction or wilful damage of institutions dedicated to
8 religion was -- that the accused have no case to answer in respect to
9 that. So I'm just wondering why you're leading now on this.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: I fully accept that evidence - sorry - that
11 finding, if Your Honours please. I have no challenge to it, of course.
12 And I'm aware of it. May I have a brief moment to confer with my
13 colleagues, and I'll put in a reply to your concern in a moment.
14 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes.
15 [Prosecution counsel confer]
16 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm going to abandon this line of
18 Q. Mr. Tadic, I want to ask you some questions regarding cooperation
19 or work with the paramilitaries. You said in cross-examination by
20 Mr. Pantelic that the Crisis Staff did not issue any orders to the army.
21 Do you recall that evidence?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Can you tell us if the Crisis Staff ever sought to influence army
25 A. I think the Crisis Staff was not able to influence the decisions
1 taken by the army in any way. These were two parallel systems, and each
2 had its own sphere of competence.
3 Q. Thank you. Can you tell us if, although the Crisis Staff, you
4 say, was not able to influence the military, whether it sought, it tried
5 to influence the military?
6 A. I don't know anything about this attempt. An attempt would have
7 to lead to results. I know of no attempts, because then I would also have
8 to know about the responses to such attempts.
9 Q. Very well. Thank you very much. Mr. Tadic, did you ever travel
10 to Belgrade in 1992 in company with Blagoje Simic, Stevan Todorovic, Simo
11 Zaric, and Milos -- and meet Milos Bogdanovic?
12 A. Yes. This happened on one occasion.
13 Q. What was the purpose of that trip?
14 A. We have already spoken of the problems that occurred in mid-May
15 and a little later; that is, during the second half of May, concerning the
16 constant shelling and the departure of a large number of refugees who were
17 accommodated in Serbia. We have also spoken here about the fact that
18 there were several such transports that were to go to Serbia, and in view
19 of the fact that we had no information from Serbia that they would receive
20 them, because the reception centre was overcrowded, the main purpose was
21 to visit Andjelko Maslic, our fellow townsman who held a high post, so to
22 say, and to see whether there was anything we could do together with him
23 in order to organise several convoys of women, children, and elderly
24 people to Serbia.
25 Q. Essentially, is it your position that the trip and the men that I
1 have mentioned was for humanitarian reasons?
2 A. Precisely so. That's exactly what I was going to say.
3 Q. You had no other purpose at all?
4 A. When we set out for Belgrade and saw Andjelko Maslic, there was no
5 other goal.
6 Q. And you knew that when you set out?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. Mr. Tadic, you are aware, are you not, that Mr. Zaric was
9 interviewed by officers of the Office of the Prosecution, the Prosecutor,
10 in --
11 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, I apologise for interrupting my
12 colleague. For a moment I was listening to the witness very carefully,
13 and the answer on page 7, line 8 was -- maybe I'm wrong. I think I heard
14 that it was actually the witness said: "What was that?" something like
15 that. And now I see: "That's correct."
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well.
17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Maybe we should go through this again. It would
18 be maybe the best. I'm not suggesting anything, but ...
19 MR. DI FAZIO: Sure. Very well
20 Q. My question was: When you set out for Belgrade in company with
21 those men, you knew that the goal of the trip was purely humanitarian --
22 was for purely humanitarian reasons?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Thank you. Now, you know that Mr. Zaric has provided interviews
25 to the Office of the Prosecutor and that he was interviewed in 1998, don't
2 A. If that's what it says here, then that's certainly so.
3 Q. Thank you. And in one of those interviews conducted on the 1st of
4 April, 1998, Mr. Zaric was questioned about this trip to Belgrade, and he
5 gave an account of the purpose of the trip and what happened on the trip,
6 and said that all the men that I've mentioned - you, Blagoje Simic, Simo
7 Zaric, Stevan Todorovic, and Milos Bogdanovic - discussed the appointment
8 of Crni as brigade commander. Do you recall anything like that happening
9 on the trip?
10 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask that the precise
11 part of the interview, that is, the page number, be mentioned. If this
12 has already been tendered into evidence, so that we know what Mr. Zaric
13 actually said, and that this part of the interview be put before
14 Mr. Tadic, as has been done up to now.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: P140 ter, pages 66 onwards, to page 78. If Your
16 Honours please, I don't propose to take Mr. Tadic through that portion of
17 Mr. Zaric's interview word for word. There is no point in the
18 Prosecution's submission. If there's anything that needs to be clarified,
19 Mr. Lukic has the interview. He can easily clarify it in re-examination
20 and can easily point out bits of anything that Mr. Zaric said in those
21 interviews to his client and obtain all the clarification that he needs in
22 re-examination. I want to put the essence of what Mr. Zaric said in the
23 course of that interview in those pages, and I believe that I've done so
24 accurately and honestly.
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but I think the practice should be that where
1 the document whose contents are being discussed is available and is
2 already an exhibit, it must be put before the witness so that he too can
3 refresh his memory. There may be some other interpretation the witness
4 may have, and he's -- he should be free to put up -- that to the Court.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Very well. Thank you. Can the witness be shown
6 Exhibit P140 ter.
7 Q. Mr. Tadic, would you please look at P140 ter, and may I ask you to
8 look at page 66, which is where the relevant answers begin. The B/C/S you
9 will find about two-thirds of the way down through P140 ter. And would
10 you read that answer.
11 A. Does this begin with "yes," the line that you are referring to?
12 Q. That's correct: "Yes, I think he would become our commander."
13 A. "Yes. Automatically he becomes my commander, our commander.
14 Unfortunately, Crni got support immediately from the Corps Commander,
15 Mr. Dencic, thanks to the intervention of the authorities from Samac.
16 Full stop. Dencic, thanks to the intervention of the authorities of Samac
17 - this sentence is a bit unclear - Dencic was a high-ranking official of
18 the corps command and who was the commander of all of us, of all the
19 units. He was the commander of the East Bosnian Corps."
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] It might be better for the witness to
22 read this silently to himself. It is not necessary to tire the
23 interpreters with it. But just for Mr. Tadic to familiarise himself with
24 the content. It's better maybe if he reads it silently to himself. Since
25 the paragraph is rather long. It's half a page long.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: I respectfully entirely agree with what Mr. Lukic
2 says. My purpose is to simply allow Mr. Tadic to acquaint himself with
3 what Mr. Zaric essentially said --
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: -- about the trip to Belgrade. That's the sole
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: And I think the witness can do it by skimming
9 through those pages. It won't take him a moment.
10 Q. Mr. Tadic, could I ask you to read, as quickly as you can, what
11 Mr. Zaric had to say about the trip to Belgrade. And you will find it in
12 P140 ter, from about page 66 onwards. Okay? Please inform us when you've
13 had an opportunity to see how he describes, how Mr. Zaric describes the
14 trip and what happened there.
15 A. Yes, I have looked through it and I'm familiar with it now.
16 Q. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Tadic. Now, you will agree
17 with me, won't you, that Mr. Zaric essentially describes a different
18 scenario, namely, that you went to Belgrade, to the MUP, and that you met
19 some generals and that you discussed the appointment of a man named Crni
20 as brigade commander. Essentially, without going into the details, but
21 essentially, that is what he said, isn't it?
22 A. That's your interpretation and the interpretation of Mr. Zaric. I
23 can explain this in my own way. The Prosecution could have asked me about
24 this as well, not only Mr. Zaric.
25 Q. Certainly. Mr. Tadic, I only have one question to ask you, and
1 that's this: Are you aware of any reason why Mr. Zaric would describe, at
2 length, these discussions regarding the appointment of a brigade
3 commander, Crni, a paramilitary, and not make any mention of humanitarian
5 A. All I can say is that before this, the commander had already been
6 appointed. Before this whole story, the commander had already been
7 appointed, and Dencic had already appointed him. This story has a certain
8 after -- it comes after the appointment of the commander. I do not deny
9 that there are things here that I could tell you about, but my main
10 impression was that the commander had already been appointed when all this
12 Q. Yes. Can you tell the Chamber --
13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Sorry. Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Di Fazio,
14 but pursuant to your question on page 11, lines 1 to 5, where you say
15 about Mr. Zaric describing at length these discussions regarding the
16 appointment of a brigade commander, Crni, a paramilitary, and not make any
17 mention of humanitarian purposes, could you just elaborate very briefly
18 for the Trial Chamber: What exactly do you mean by the latter, "and not
19 make any mention of humanitarian purposes."
20 MR. DI FAZIO: If you read the portion of the interview --
21 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Because I don't, unfortunately, have it right in
22 front of me at the moment.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: His account, Mr. Zaric's account, as I read that
24 part of the interview, is that they arrived in Belgrade and discussed the
25 appointment of Crni as brigade commander, and this followed upon various
1 negotiations that had taken place in Bosanski Samac. Now, unless I've
2 missed something, I saw nothing in the -- in that account that placed the
3 purpose of the trip to Belgrade as being one of humanitarian -- for
4 humanitarian purposes. And I wondered if there was any reason for that,
5 and that was the purpose of ... Page 67, indeed, as Mr. Weiner points out,
6 Mr. Zaric said, when asked about the trip: "It could have been between
7 the 21st of May and the end of May. Already in the car we were told that
8 all of this was about Crni, and we needed to get to Belgrade to get
9 approval." So that was the purposes of it. So is my point --
10 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes, yes, and I will refer back to that page in
11 the exhibit. Thank you very much.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something?
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, Mr. Tadic.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Maslic, who was the first one we
16 went to see when we arrived in Belgrade, then the incident that has
17 already been mentioned here took place, that is, Mr. Todorovic had issued
18 orders that Mr. Zaric, Mr. Bogdanovic, and I, and some other people,
19 should be arrested at the checkpoint in Gorica, and I think that this
20 statement was mentioned here. And then there was an acrimonious
21 discussion about this. Mr. Blagoje Simic tried to calm things down as far
22 as he could, because all this was taking place in the street. And when
23 the situation calmed down, we went there with a strictly humanitarian
24 purpose, because Andjelko Maslic had nothing to do with the appointment of
25 the commander in Samac. He was purely a civilian and had nothing
1 whatsoever to do with that action. When this action was completed,
2 Mr. Todorovic, since he was driving, took us to the place mentioned here,
3 RPV and so on, with the task of possibly demonstrating his position with
4 these -- there was no other purpose to this, because the commander had
5 already been appointed. When we arrived in RPV, the brigade commander was
6 already Crni. We could have tried to strengthen this position, but he had
7 already been appointed and approved by Mr. Dencic as the brigade
9 At this meeting, Mr. Todorovic acted arrogantly. He acted as if
10 he knew everyone. He addressed everyone by their names. We kept quiet
11 because we had seen these people for the first time and we were there for
12 the first time. He was trying to create the impression that he had
13 connections with generals and the people who were present there, three or
14 four people who were there, and in view of the fact that this was a very
15 unpleasant situation and I wasn't even interested, I asked the gentleman,
16 who was the main general there, whether I could see a relative of mine who
17 was a colonel in the air force, whether I could go and see him, because he
18 had uncles in Novi Grad, in the situation that has already been mentioned
19 here, so I won't go into it now. And he made this possible for me.
20 I went out. I met this relative of mine --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio, do you need this evidence.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't. I don't need this evidence at all. I
23 just didn't want to prevent Mr. Tadic from providing his full explanation
24 of what occurred at the meeting in Belgrade.
25 Q. Mr. Tadic, may I ask you: During the course of the meeting in
1 Belgrade, do you recall Blagoje Simic telephoning and speaking to General
3 A. But I haven't finished my story. I left the room and I went to
4 see the relative --
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Tadic, this is a criminal trial, and the
6 Prosecution is cross-examining you. The Prosecution is only interested in
7 certain parts of everything that you know, because the Prosecution can
8 only elicit evidence relevant to the case. So please do listen to the
9 questions and simply answer them.
10 MR. DI FAZIO:
11 Q. Mr. Tadic, don't worry. You have your counsel, who will clarify
12 anything that you want in re-examination.
13 A. I apologise.
14 Q. He's watching us like a hawk and will make sure that he clarifies
15 anything that I have left unclear. So I put your mind at rest, okay.
16 My only question to you about this meeting is this: In the course
17 of the meeting, did Blagoje Simic speak over the telephone to General
19 A. I wasn't in the room all the time, but while I was there, and
20 after I came back, no, he didn't. I was there a little bit at the
21 beginning, and then a little bit at the end. During the time I was in the
22 room, he didn't talk to him.
23 Q. Thank you. Can I ask you to, as briefly as possible, just tell
24 the Chamber, in bullet-point form, in the form of topics only, topics
25 only, what humanitarian activities the four of you -- five of you
1 undertook once you had arrived in Belgrade.
2 A. We didn't undertake any humanitarian activities. We only told
3 Mr. Maslic about the humanitarian situation on the ground and our wish to
4 try to set up more reception centres for people from Samac. We asked him
5 to undertake some of these activities and to assist us in this way.
6 Q. Mr. Tadic, there's no reason, as far as you're aware, for
7 Mr. Zaric to have fabricated any conversation as far as you're aware,
8 between Blagoje Simic and General Mladic?
9 JUDGE MUMBA: That is not a fair question, Mr. Di Fazio, and I
10 will not allow it, in view of the previous answer of the witness -- the
11 accused, rather.
12 MR. DI FAZIO:
13 Q. Did Blagoje Simic report to you any conversation that he had had
14 with General Mladic? You may not have heard it, but did he report any
15 such conversation?
16 A. On our return from Samac, in the car, the atmosphere was very
17 tense, for various reasons. Nobody talked to anyone. Blagoje Simic
18 didn't tell me, then or later, that there had been any conversation with
20 Q. Very well. I understand your position now. Thank you. Can you
21 tell the Chamber what humanitarian concerns Stevan Todorovic pursued in
23 A. He was the driver. He drove the car. We were there with him and
24 he was there with us, when we went to see Mr. Maslic. He wasn't engaged
25 in humanitarian work, but he drove the car that we were in.
1 Q. I see. So Mr. Todorovic, chief of police and Crisis Staff member,
2 was purely a chauffeur on this occasion?
3 JUDGE MUMBA: No. That's a bit exaggerated, Mr. Di Fazio. That's
4 not what the accused has said. He simply said he drove the car, he didn't
5 say he was purely a chauffeur. That's not fair.
6 MR. DI FAZIO: All right.
7 Q. Did he do anything other than drive the car?
8 A. He drove a police car. He was wearing a police uniform and he was
9 able to pass through every checkpoint without any delays. That was his
10 advantage in relation to all civilians, other civilians who might be
11 driving, and it was in his interest to take us to RPV. Had I been
12 driving, I wouldn't have wanted to go to RPV. I had no interest in going
13 there. But as he was driving, he said he had to go there. He had to see
14 his best man, and we couldn't go hitchhiking, so we had to sit in the car
15 and go with him. Milos Bogdanovic didn't make use of this, because he had
16 no obligations towards Todorovic. He had his own car, so he didn't go to
18 Q. Thank you. And finally on this topic: How long did the trip
20 A. That day. We set out in the morning and we came back in the late
21 afternoon. I don't know how long it took, but we stayed perhaps an hour
22 with Maslic, and less than an hour in RPV. And what I know, we quarrelled
23 there for about half an hour in the street about the checkpoint where we
24 were to be arrested.
25 Q. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Tadic, is it your position that
1 detainees in Bosanski Samac who were exchanged did so voluntarily? I
2 think that's capable of a yes or no answer, I hope.
3 A. They did this voluntarily, at their own wish, and those who didn't
4 wish to do this, they chose the other option and they weren't exchanged.
5 Q. Thank you. Civilians who were exchanged did so voluntarily?
6 A. Now you're mixing in civilians and exchanges. We said that
7 civilians went to these exchanges. That was the word used, because they
8 had to fulfil certain conditions. They had to have lists, they had to
9 pass through certain checkpoints, they had to be accepted. So that there
10 were a lot of problems there.
11 Q. Very well. Let me ask you this way: Is it your position that at
12 the points of exchange, civilians decided to leave voluntarily?
13 A. Civilians were first registered with the Red Cross, and once they
14 put their signature there, and once they provided their own personal
15 information, all sorts of personal information, they would thereby opt to
16 go to be exchanged. But at the line of separation, where they crossed to
17 the other side, they were asked again and they would have to say again,
18 wherever this was possible, wherever this could be arranged, and mostly it
19 could be arranged. I was referring to an exchange on the 13th of January,
20 1993, when I was not present.
21 Q. Mr. Tadic, is that agreement with the proposition that at the
22 points of exchange, those locations, civilians voluntarily left?
23 A. As I've already said, they left of their own free will. They
24 would go to the Red Cross and provide the Red Cross with their personal
25 information, which means that the whole thing was entirely voluntary.
1 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tadic.
2 A. You're welcome.
3 Q. You know and you agree, don't you, that mass arrests of non-Serbs
4 took place in Bosanski Samac after April 16 and 17?
5 A. As I said yesterday, I just can't agree with the adjective you're
6 using, "mass arrests." If only one, two or three such persons were
7 arrested, I don't think you can call it mass arrests, exactly. So I do
8 agree that there were arrests, yes, but not mass arrests.
9 Q. Do you agree that large numbers of non-Serb men were arrested
10 after the 16th and 17th of April, 1992?
11 A. Yesterday or the day before yesterday, I thought we made it
12 sufficiently clear. In the SUP, in the TO, in the elementary school
13 building, the secondary school building, we even discussed numbers, so I'm
14 not sure there's any need for us to go through these same figures again.
15 I do agree that there were arrests, and as I said the last time I spoke
16 about this, I'm not sure about the specific numbers in some of the places
17 you're referring to, but yes, a number of people were arrested. I believe
18 I said 50 or 60 at the elementary school building at one point in time
19 there were as many as 300 people. I did say this yesterday or the day
20 before yesterday. I can't remember exactly.
21 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tadic.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Could the witness be shown Exhibit P138 ter.
23 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me. While the document is being found.
24 Mr. Tadic, given your background with civilian protection and also with
25 the Red Cross and so on, these people who were detained in the detention
1 centres in Bosanski Samac, would some of them have been classified as
2 prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions, if you know, given your
3 background in the Red Cross and civilian protection and so on?
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, probably those who were in
5 possession of weapons, those who resisted, or those who had caused other
6 kinds of incidents in the sense you're talking about would have been
7 detainees. But as far as I remember, one of the agreements between the
8 warring sides - I can't remember the specific article - it reads, however,
9 that every person detained, on any grounds, during the conflict is
10 considered a prisoner. I can't quote this off the top of my head right
11 now, but probably the Chamber will get to see this document eventually, so
12 you will be able to check for yourselves. I think that's how this
13 particular part was classified by the agreement signed in Geneva. I
14 really regret very much not having the document before me right now, so I
15 could provide further comments. So the Geneva Conventions were sort of
16 applied with some latitude, in a manner of speaking.
17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
18 MR. DI FAZIO:
19 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tadic. May I ask you to look at page 40 of P138
20 ter. I want to just clarify this use of the adjective that you disagree
21 with, namely, "mass arrests." Page 40, please. At the bottom of the page
22 you will see a short, brief paragraph consisting of five lines. Can you
23 please slowly read that into the transcript.
24 A. Do you mean the part beginning with "no"?
25 Q. Yes.
1 A. "No. I spoke about the first days of the war, which means the
2 18th, perhaps the 19th and the 20th of April. This implies 1992. I spoke
3 about those days of the war, and I don't know the exact number of people
4 who were arrested then, but certainly no more than 30 persons. The arrest
5 you are speaking about only occurred much later, perhaps as much as a
6 month later."
7 I think this is probably the passage you were referring to.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me.
9 [Prosecution counsel confer]
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 MR. DI FAZIO:
12 Q. I'd like you to -- I'd like you, if you may, Mr. Tadic, to read
13 out loud the last sentence of that -- the last sentence of that answer,
14 clearly and slowly for the interpreters. The last sentence.
15 A. What I've just read out?
16 Q. Yes. Start afresh.
17 A. So after the full stop: "The arrest you are speaking about only
18 occurred much later, perhaps a month after the event." Is this consistent
19 with the English interpretation?
20 Q. Well, whatever adjective you care to use, we agree, don't we, that
21 large numbers of non-Serb men were arrested after the 16th and 17th of
22 April, 1992?
23 A. I did even go so far as to say but not more than 30 people, so
24 speaking of those first days. That's my conviction. But now you're
25 trying to get me to answer something that I simply can't answer because I
1 don't know. But I should assume that up to 30 people had been arrested on
2 that occasion.
3 Q. And following that, large numbers of Croat and Muslim men were
4 arrested; do you agree?
5 A. Perhaps a month after that event. That's what it says here:
6 Perhaps a month after the event. That means after the 18th, 19th, and
7 20th, a month later there were arrests on a more massive scale.
8 Q. Thank you. So we agree --
9 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Mr. Di Fazio, I was just going to say, I'm not
10 going to bother flicking back on the LiveNote here, but I think we've
11 heard Mr. Tadic say now several times that there were approximately 30
12 people in the first couple of days, and then following that, there were
13 anywhere up to 300 or whatever. It doesn't seem to be a point of
15 MR. DI FAZIO: No. No, no. I think we've arrived at the point
16 where I entirely agree with what Your Honour says. I agree there's no
17 more contention. Mr. Tadic describes arrests on a more massive scale, and
18 indeed I was referring to the English translation of the interview which
19 uses that particular adjective, which was not agreed with at the
21 Q. Mr. Tadic, you knew that these detainees had been tortured and
22 beaten regularly?
23 A. Mr. Di Fazio, I tried to answer your question yesterday. If you
24 want me to repeat my answer, I may leave out a word or two that I used
25 yesterday. I'm not sure if this really matters. But I can try to
1 reiterate my answer if you'd like me to.
2 Q. Mr. Tadic, you knew, from hearing conversations in public places,
3 that the prisoners were tortured and beaten regularly?
4 A. I did get to learn, but I wouldn't say regularly. I got to learn
5 from people who did have contact with those prisoners. You have already
6 heard in this discussion that the Red Cross did indeed go to those
7 premises, and quite often. Physicians would go there, and I was in touch
8 with all these people, and they're the only people I could possibly have
9 heard this from, or possibly from a number of police officers that I used
10 to see quite a lot of also and was on friendly terms with, because the
11 police officers I'm talking about were police officers from the former
12 times. So that's what my information was based on, and that's what you
14 Q. The men who were arrested were arrested by force, that is, at gun
15 point, at their homes and at the police station?
16 A. I know nothing about that.
17 Q. They were detained against their will?
18 A. I know nothing about that.
19 Q. They weren't free to leave?
20 A. Again, I know nothing about that either.
21 Q. They were kept under guard at the TO, the high school gym, the
22 primary school gym, the SUP?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. So they were being held by force?
25 A. Well, if there were guards there, yes, I suppose you could say
1 that they were held there. Now, whether by force or not, I think you
2 should talk to the guards about this.
3 Q. The result was, wasn't it, that hundreds of non-Serb men, Croats
4 and Muslims, were being held and separated from the wider community? That
5 stands to reason.
6 A. I wouldn't be able to tell you anything about that. I know that a
7 number of persons were detained, but I don't know any of the other
8 specifics related to that.
9 Q. The only way out for these men in custody was to leave Bosanski
10 Samac at the point of exchange, where the exchanges took place?
11 A. One of the ways out, but not the only way out. You have heard
12 testimony here telling you that people were leaving in different ways, in
13 other ways too. This was only one of the ways for these people to leave.
14 Q. I'm referring to the detainees.
15 A. I'm referring to the detainees too, detainees, prisoners, whatever
16 you choose to call them.
17 Q. The main way for them to exit their prisons was via an exchange?
18 A. One of, one of the possible ways, was to leave via an exchange.
19 Q. It was the main way?
20 A. Okay. Let us agree that it was the main way, if you view the
21 other ways people leaving as subsidiary ways, then this would probably be
22 the main way.
23 Q. They were exchanged for Serbs who came into the territory of
24 Bosanski Samac?
25 A. If they were prisoners, they came for prisoners, mainly Serbs,
1 from the Odzak area. If they were civilians, they would just cross to the
2 other side, to the Croatian side, the Croatian Defence Council. Serb
3 civilians from that side crossed to the Samac area, and from there, some
4 of them remained in the Samac area but some of them travelled on to other
5 areas where they thought it would be easier for them.
6 Q. Yes, but the result was that they were exchanged for Serbs that
7 came into the territory of Bosanski Samac, territory held by Serb forces?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The result of that was that the ethnic groups were being
11 A. I am not sure I know what you mean by "separated." Those who
12 arrived were with those who were in Samac, and those who left were with
13 those who just happened to be there. At that time in Samac, there were
14 all the different ethnic groups, and in the other area too.
15 Q. The process of exchanging non-Serbs for Serbs via exchanges
16 resulted in Serbs leaving the area of Bosanski Samac -- sorry -- non-Serbs
17 leaving the area of Bosanski Samac and Serbs entering it?
18 A. Well, you could put it that way, yes.
19 Q. And large numbers of the non-Serbs leaving Bosanski Samac were
20 those who had been held in detention centres?
21 A. Some were in detention centres, but the majority of them were not
22 in any Detention Centres.
23 Q. This is ethnic separation by force, isn't it?
24 A. That's what you claim.
25 Q. Mr. Tadic, Biljana Plavsic has pleaded guilty to one count of the
1 crime of persecution and is to be sentenced on Thursday. She has admitted
2 to a number of issues and matters, including this: "The SDS and the
3 Bosnian Serb leadership were committed to a primary goal that all Serbs in
4 the former Yugoslavia would remain in a common state. One method of
5 achieving this goal was by separating the ethnic communities in Bosnia and
6 Herzegovina. By October 1991, the Bosnian Serb leadership, including
7 Mrs. Plavsic, knew and intended that the separation of the ethnic
8 communities would include the permanent removal of ethnic populations,
9 either by agreement or by force, and further knew that any forcible
10 removal of non-Serbs from Serbian-claimed territories would involve a
11 discriminatory campaign of persecution. The intention to separate the
12 ethnic communities by force, which included the knowledge that forcible,
13 permanent removal of non-Serb from Serbian-claimed territories would
14 include a discriminatory campaign of persecution is hereinafter referred
15 to as the object of ethnic separation by force."
16 That is what is occurring, is it not, in the municipality of
17 Bosanski Samac?
18 A. It's difficult to comment on a statement like this, but whatever
19 Biljana Plavsic has admitted to, she must be made to answer for. I myself
20 am no lawyer, so I find it difficult to comment. But as a professor of
21 engineering, my comment would probably be a bit different. If Biljana
22 indeed admitted that she had expelled 45.000 [Realtime transcript read in
23 error "4.000"] non-Serbs from our area, the area that we are now referring
24 to, and about a thousand persons left via the exchanges, when non-Serbs
25 were being exchanged, then this would amount to 2 per cent. And if you
1 divide these two per cent up to Veljo Maslic and Miroslav Tadic, then I
2 myself deserve 7 per cent of these 2 per cent. So I don't think it's much
3 of a sin really.
4 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic --
5 MR. LAZAREVIC: Just one small correction for the transcript. It
6 should read 40.000 instead of 4.000.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I said 45.000 here. What I can see
8 here in the transcript is 4.000. I would not like to comment on Biljana's
9 admission, not being a lawyer myself, but not even as a citizen, it would
10 not be becoming of me to comment on that, because the comment would not be
11 a very favourable one. So I would like to ask you to please spare me
13 MR. DI FAZIO:
14 Q. Mr. Tadic, I'm not going to invite you just to comment, give us
15 your comments. I'll be fair and I'll ask you very specific questions
16 about it. Okay. I only have one more paragraph that I want to put to
17 you, and then I'll ask you, not for comment, but a specific question,
19 "In addition, the SDS prepared and distributed written
20 instructions to SDS municipal leaders to form Crisis Staffs, proclaim
21 Serbian Municipal Assemblies, and carry out preparations for the formation
22 of municipal governmental bodies and to mobilise Bosnian Serb police and
23 Territorial Defence forces and subordinate them to JNA command. The
24 municipal crisis staffs implemented these objectives and directives in the
25 field, including ultimately the objective of ethnic separation by force."
1 That's what she said in the course of admitting her crime.
2 So she has admitted to pursuing ethnic separation and by force,
3 and she has said that the municipal crisis staffs had an important role to
5 Do you agree with her assessment?
6 A. I do not agree with her assessment. First of all, I never saw
7 Biljana Plavsic anywhere within 20 kilometres from where I was. I only
8 saw her a couple of times on TV, when she was giving a speech. I never
9 saw her own papers, her documents, the ones you're talking about here that
10 she had given the orders or devolved these orders onto lower levels of
11 decision making. Therefore, I'm not in agreement with her assessment, at
12 least as concerns this particular section of her assessment, even if I
13 never said that I was not to blame for anything. But these particular
14 issues that Biljana Plavsic is here referring to, I really have nothing to
15 do with that.
16 Q. She has said that she participated in the giving of instructions
17 to carry out these policies, including the objective of ethnic separation
18 by force. You were a member of such a Crisis Staff, were you not?
19 A. Yes, for a brief while, for a very brief while, I was a member of
20 such a Crisis Staff, and I said what the reason was, and I also said
21 clearly that this Crisis Staff never received any document coming from
22 Biljana Plavsic, speaking about this. The Crisis Staff never received any
23 discriminatory documents from anyone else either. The Crisis Staff never
24 issued any papers or documents inciting to discrimination in the sense
25 being discussed. If what Biljana Plavsic is saying now were true, I'm
1 sure the Dayton Accords would never have been reached, and the Republika
2 Srpska would probably now not have its own borders, its own president, its
3 own police force, and so on and so forth.
4 Q. Biljana Plavsic has said that instructions came from the Bosnian
5 Serb leadership, not just herself. Did not such instructions from the
6 Bosnian Serb leadership come to the Crisis Staff of which you were a
8 A. As I've said, I have never seen any of those leaders or members of
9 that leadership anywhere near where I was, except on TV, and I have never
10 seen a letter or an order inciting to discrimination signed by anyone,
11 Biljana Plavsic or any of the other leaders for that matter. Myself, I
12 was not that high-ranking an official, nor was my interest really that
13 catholic [Realtime transcript read in error "Catholic"], so I was not
14 really in touch with the people that you have been referring to. Samac,
15 as a place, was quite far away from the events, from the events that are
16 under discussion here, from Biljana Plavsic and from the other people too.
17 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. Di Fazio. I think this is
18 probably something in translation. Page 28, line 9, when Mr. Tadic says
19 "his interest really wasn't that Catholic," I presume it's use of the
20 word "Catholic," meaning universal, rather than Catholic as a religion as
22 MR. DI FAZIO: That's a legitimate meaning of the word, of course.
23 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes, naturally.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll ask.
25 Q. When you described -- when you described your interest not really
1 that catholic I take it you mean universal, all-encompassing, something
2 like that?
3 A. No. I never meant Catholic in the sense of religion, and I don't
4 think any such meaning could have been gleaned from the context, the
5 context that I was talking about. I wasn't talking about the Catholic
6 church, Catholic as in the Catholic church. I meant universal or
7 far-ranging. I was not referring to Catholics or Muslims or Serbs.
8 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tadic.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown Exhibit P162 ter. If Your
10 Honours please, this was produced by Witnesses DW 1/3. I want to inquire
11 as to whether or not it's under seal. I just want to make sure it's not
12 under seal before it's produced.
13 THE REGISTRAR: It is under seal.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: It is under seal. I'd ask that the appropriate
15 measures be taken for -- to make sure that it's protected and -- is it
16 necessary for us to go into closed session, if Your Honours please?
17 JUDGE MUMBA: It depends on the questions you ask.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. I won't be asking about the content of the
19 document, so it might be safe --
20 JUDGE MUMBA: So we'll go into private session.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you.
22 [Private session]
12 Pages 15754 to 15760 – redacted – private session
7 [Open session]
8 THE REGISTRAR: We're now in open session.
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. Di Fazio, would you allow me to
10 read one more sentence?
11 MR. DI FAZIO: Certainly. I don't want to muzzle the witness or
12 to be seen to muzzle the witness. Perhaps we can go back into private
13 session, if --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes. Because he wants to read from the
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] It doesn't have to be in private
17 session. From this statement, yes, but it doesn't mention the name.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: No. Can you wait? We'll go back into private
20 [Private session]
14 [Open session]
15 THE REGISTRAR: We are now in open session.
16 MR. DI FAZIO:
17 Q. Mr. Tadic, your position has been that the Crisis Staff did not
18 involve itself in the actual organisation and running of the exchanges;
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Would you please look at this document that I've produced to you.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, copies were served on the
23 Defence well over a week ago, and I have sufficient English copies and
24 B/C/S copies of this document.
25 Q. Mr. Tadic, two questions: Is that your signature on the document
1 and are you familiar with that document?
2 A. Yes, this is my signature, and I am familiar with the document,
3 and I, a few days ago, I explained how this document came to be.
4 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tadic.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with me for a moment?
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. If Your Honours please, I seek to
9 tender the document into evidence.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Any objection from the Defence?
11 MR. LUKIC: No objection.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the number, please?
13 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P163 and P163 ter for the
15 MR. DI FAZIO:
16 Q. Mr. Tadic, is that portion of the document that is covered by your
17 signature true?
18 A. Well, what it says here, that's it.
19 Q. I know that what it says is it. My question is: Is the content
20 of the document to which you appended your signature true?
21 A. It is true.
22 Q. The document refers to agreement between Red Crosses, as well as
23 Crisis Staffs; therefore, Crisis Staffs negotiated and participated in the
24 agreement. Correct?
25 A. I told you that this is the way I drew up the document in order to
1 obtain the approval of the people mentioned here. I said I went to
2 Belgrade to organise this exchange in July 1992, and when I arrived there,
3 the people from the commission of Yugoslavia told me I had to have a
4 document, on the basis of which I could ask for approval to enter
5 Yugoslavia, to enter the UNPA zone, and to address the UNPROFOR in
6 Belgrade. I said to him: "I don't have any documents." And the man said
7 to me: "What are you doing? Do you have an Exchange Commission?" I
8 said: "Well, formally we are working, but we have no commission." He
9 said: "What do you do?" I said I was the head of the civilian protection
10 staff. He asked me: "Is there a civilian body?" I said: "Well, there's
11 a Crisis Staff." So then let's put down a request on behalf of the Crisis
12 Staff to give this some weight. And then the man drew up this document.
13 He had never even been to Samac or seen it.
14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Tadic. The document says: "In accordance with
15 agreement reached between Red Cross and Crisis Staffs." Therefore, the
16 Crisis Staffs entered into negotiations regarding the agreement; correct?
17 A. Are you expecting an answer?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. What I'm saying is that this is only the way the letter was
20 drafted, on the basis of which letter I was supposed to receive approval.
21 You see who the addressees are and who the letter was sent to. This was
22 not written by the Crisis Staff. This has never undergone any kind of
23 protocol. There is no signature on behalf of the Crisis Staff. It means
24 on behalf of the Crisis Staff, Miroslav Tadic. So I signed this on their
1 Q. The last sentence. It says: "The Crisis Staff requests the
2 approval and assistance in order to realise this exchange." Is that true?
3 A. That's what it says. What do you think, if I had written Miroslav
4 Tadic seeks your approval? What would the UNPROFOR people have said?
5 What institution are you to seek approval? So you had to seek approval on
6 somebody's behalf.
7 Q. My question -- my question is this: It says the Crisis Staff
8 requests your approval and assistance. Is it true -- to realise the
10 A. That's what it reads, but there is also the explanation that if I
11 take upon myself the obligation that I did this, is there any problem with
12 that? The Crisis Staff did not know about this, nor were they the ones
13 who wrote this document. I wrote the document myself.
14 Q. Thank you.
15 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Excuse me. Mr. Tadic, at the time you signed
16 this particular document, P163, were you actually a member of the Crisis
17 Staff at that point in time, the period in time that this was signed and
18 leading up to the exchange in Lipovac on Saturday, 11th of July, 1992?
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think this was a little earlier
20 than what it actually states, the 11th of July. There is no date here
21 when it was written because an exchange was organised for the 11th of
22 July, and actually it was held on the 5th of July. I'm not sure how many
23 days in advance this was written, but the form and the content and the
24 purpose of this letter is what I've just explained. Approval was needed
25 from UNPROFOR, from Yugoslavia, or from the Krajina, for that matter, for
1 us to pass through the area. I had no experience at that point as to how
2 to go about this, because I was in Belgrade for the first time, meeting
3 the people who are mentioned here: General Radinovic, who was the
4 president of Yugoslavia's commission, and he backed my letter.
5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Yes. But to answer my question sort of
6 succinctly: When you signed it, obviously you recall signing it, because
7 you've said that, when you signed it, when you actually, at that point in
8 time, a member of the Crisis Staff of Bosanski Samac?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think at that time it was still
10 Crisis Staff, but that was towards the end. But I think at that point
11 there was still such a thing as the Crisis Staff. Perhaps I would have
12 written War Presidency if it was already War Presidency. But you had to
13 sign someone here, the Crisis Staff or the War Presidency. But I think at
14 this point in time it was still the Crisis Staff. I had to -- I sent this
15 document to Mario Velikonja.
16 JUDGE WILLIAMS: And just to follow up again, just for clarity:
17 And at that time you were a member of the Crisis Staff as it then was,
18 before it became the War Presidency? Yes or no.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
20 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Tadic.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes. Thank you.
22 Q. Mr. Tadic, Witness Q testified that he was informed the night
23 before his exchange that he would be exchanged and that he suffered
24 continuous beating and torture during the period of his incarceration. You
25 recall that evidence, that unchallenged evidence? Yes or no.
1 A. It wasn't challenged, and I won't challenge it myself. I'm not
2 sure who Witness Q is. I can't remember at the moment. But if he said
3 that there was beating, I have no reason to say that there wasn't simply
4 because I wasn't there.
5 Q. Thank you.
6 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
8 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] We should not bring the witness -- we
9 should not mislead the witness. We should go into private session, and I
10 think the Prosecutor should put the name of the witness to Mr. Tadic in
11 order to refresh his memory. So maybe if we could just have that.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Is the Prosecution pressing this?
13 MR. DI FAZIO: I've got the answer I want. If Defence counsel
14 is --
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Especially that the beatings are not being
17 MR. DI FAZIO: That's right. They're not being contested. Thank
18 you. I don't press for the matter to go into private session, no. I'd
19 like to proceed, if I may.
20 Q. Mr. Tadic, you would agree that that person had no choice but to
21 leave through the exchange?
22 JUDGE MUMBA: If you're continually referring to Q, we had better
23 have his name so Mr. Tadic can be reminded. I thought you weren't
24 continuing with reference to Witness Q
25 [Private session]
21 [Open session]
22 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll repeat my question.
24 Q. Dragan Lukac gave evidence, unchallenged evidence, of being
25 arrested, tortured, detained, moved from prison to prison, and asked by
1 Sveto Vasovic, the night before his exchange, if he wanted to be
2 exchanged. He had no choice but to be exchanged. Correct?
3 A. Mr. Di Fazio, many other people opted to be exchanged, many other
4 people who had choice. I'm not saying that Lukac was or was not in a
5 position to choose between leaving and staying, but the witness you have
6 referred to before, and Lukac, they were all able to say: We refuse to go
7 away. We'll go back to Samac. The witness you referred to before. I
8 even believe that he was able to go back to Samac, because he was well
9 regarded among the people in Samac. Lukac also would have been able to
10 return, but he didn't think that that was the best option for him, so he
11 decided to leave.
12 Q. Muhamed Bicic testified, unchallenged, that he was beaten and
13 tortured repeatedly, including being tortured by a member of the Crisis
14 Staff. That evidence was unchallenged. He testified he was taken from
15 the TO to the primary school, without any consultation whatsoever, and
16 exchanged. No one even bothered to ask him. That evidence was
17 unchallenged. He had no choice but to be exchanged, didn't he?
18 A. I don't believe that he was never asked, but in any case, had he
19 wanted to, he would been able to go home, repair his pizzeria, the
20 pizzeria that he used to own, if not at the same time as all the others,
21 then perhaps a while later, because that's what many other people did. So
22 we can't generalise like that: They could or they couldn't. Some people
23 chose to go and some people chose to stay. It's as simple as that. We
24 have people on the both sides who are still alive, people who at one point
25 chose to go, and people who at one point chose to leave.
1 Q. Witness N was also a victim of Milan Simic. He was repeatedly
2 tortured, had his teeth pulled out with pliers, I believe had a half moon
3 carved into his head with a knife. He was exchanged. He didn't have any
4 choice to be exchanged, did he?
5 A. The same rule applies to all of them. If he had stayed, if he had
6 returned, I believe that very soon he would have been able to press
7 charges, if not immediately, at a later stage, he could have pressed
8 charges, he would have been in a position to press charges for everything
9 that was done to him, and I'm sure that there would have been a trial, as
10 there have been other trials. We do not have any interest or use, if
11 these people know who they had been carved up by, who had extracted their
12 tooth, then they go somewhere far away and from a distance of 5.000
13 kilometres they talk about someone having extracted their tooth. If this
14 dentist is still around --
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio, control.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: You need those answers?
18 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't -- I'm not unhappy with the answers, if
19 Your Honours please, but I have to tread a delicate line between trying to
20 muzzle the witness and control him. However, I understand from Your
21 Honours are saying and I will endeavour to ensure that the answers are not
22 too rambling.
23 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Could I just ask one small question before you
24 begin, Mr. Di Fazio.
25 Mr. Tadic, with several of the witnesses whose names or numbers I
1 don't recall right now, we heard that there was really no possibility
2 during the period of April, May, June 1992, and maybe longer, to bring
3 cases before civilian, civil, or criminal courts. So I'm just wondering,
4 with respect to your answer that some of these persons Mr. Lukac and
5 others, Mr. Bicic, and so on, that had they decided not to be exchanged
6 and would have simply stayed in Samac, how they would have got the remedy
7 at that point in time rather than going across the separation line, if
8 they had decided to stay, when Mr. Todorovic was still in power as chief
9 of police and so on. I wonder whether you might have some comments on
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, if they had stayed,
12 Mr. Todorovic would have been removed much sooner than he eventually was,
13 in all likelihood. That's one thing. Secondly, we've heard testimonies
14 before this Court to the effect that certain trials had already begun, if
15 you remember the case of Goran Kljajic. Certain cases were brought before
16 tribunals. Those were isolated cases, for the simple reason that many of
17 these people now reside very far from Samac, so therefore, they decide not
18 to bring these cases. We heard about one man having two or three of his
19 teeth pulled out, and another had four of his teeth pulled out, and all
20 these people are alive and well, but somewhere else, but they choose not
21 to bring any cases before the local tribunals because they live far away.
22 But they would be able to do so, if they chose to do so. So now they're
23 trying to shift the blame to me for all these people who extracted other
24 people's teeth, for all these people who beat other people. Me, and I'm
25 completely blameless in this. So I'm going to have to take the blame for
1 all of those people who had done such things. And even here, we've had
2 witnesses who spoke about spending time together with those beaters and
3 with those dentists, in a manner of speaking, and about preparing new
4 beatings and new tooth extractions together with those people.
5 MR. DI FAZIO:
6 Q. Mr. Tadic, did you or the Exchange Commission, or at any time in
7 1992, make inquiries of these people as to whether or not they wanted to
8 cross over?
9 A. I've been compelled to repeat this several times already. All of
10 those people volunteered, registered with the Red Cross, and said that
11 they wanted to go. Others, at the separation line, said clearly whether
12 they wanted to go or not. Unfortunately, we've spoken about a number of
13 exchanges. For example, 26 Serbs came from Orasje who were supposed to
14 cross over to our side. Only six of them said they actually wanted to
15 cross over to the Serbian side, and 20 of them eventually returned to
16 Orasje. So there was no exception there. People thought it was time they
17 went back to where they came from and to try to do their best to create
18 better living conditions where they belong. And this is very much what
19 happened in Samac. People who returned or those who refused to be
20 exchanged struggled to reach a certain position, and they eventually
21 succeeded. They continued their lives like everybody else. Nowadays they
22 have a perfectly normal life. Yes, they did have a hard time, but that
23 applied to everyone there.
24 Q. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Tadic. Snjezana Delic testified,
25 unchallenged that she had lived in Bosanski Samac all her life, that she
1 met her husband Dragan Delic and married in 1979, had two kids, a boy and
2 a girl, aged 10 and 7 in 1992, and that she taught economics at the
3 secondary school until April of 1992. You recall that evidence, don't
4 you? Yes or no.
5 A. I remember it very well.
6 Q. Dragan Delic testified that he lived most of his life in Bosanski
7 Samac, he was president of the managing board of Mebos in 1992, and that
8 both he and his wife, Snjezana, were exchanged on the 4th of September,
9 1992; correct?
10 A. That's correct, in case you got all the dates right, yes, that
11 should be correct. Yes, they were exchanged.
12 Q. Rely on me, Mr. Tadic. Snjezana Delic testified that she couldn't
13 get money out of a bank account following the arrest of her husband. That
14 evidence was unchallenged; correct?
15 A. No, and I also told you what happened to my bank account, so we
16 were in the same position, because we were both private entrepreneurs. I
17 couldn't get any of my money out at that point.
18 Q. She testified that she couldn't get money out of her bank account
19 following the arrest of her husband and that it was because the arrest of
20 her husband that she was unable to get her money out; correct? That
21 evidence was unchallenged. Correct?
22 A. I was not arrested, and it seems I was quite Serb in a manner of
23 speaking for not being arrested. And yet I was not able to get any of my
24 money out from the account, from any of the accounts. I enumerated most
25 of them, and I still don't have any of that money.
1 Q. Mr. Tadic, with respect, I am not asking you about your bank
2 accounts. I'm asking you about the testimony of Snjezana Delic. She
3 testified that she couldn't get money out of a bank account following the
4 arrest of her husband, for that reason. That testimony was unchallenged
5 by your counsel; correct?
6 A. There is no reason for me not to believe what Snjezana said. I
7 myself was not able to do that. Why would she have been able to do so and
9 JUDGE MUMBA: We've heard enough about your own problem on this.
10 Just answer the question put to you.
11 MR. DI FAZIO:
12 Q. We'll finish quickly, Mr. Tadic, if we keep the answers short, I
13 can guarantee that.
14 Snjezana Delic testified that a curfew was imposed but that Serbs
15 could move around as they wished. That was unchallenged; correct?
16 MR. LUKIC: Excuse me, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I believe this whole line of
19 questioning is really about two questions. The witness should be asked if
20 he knows whether his Defence or any other Defence ever challenged the fact
21 so he can say what he thinks about it. But we have the same questioning
22 recurring all the time. The witness is supposed to tell us whether he
23 knows whether any of the Defence teams had ever challenged the fact. So
24 it's all about these two questions: Whether this is indeed true or
25 whether any of the Defence teams had ever challenged the fact. All these
1 facts have indeed been challenged by the Defence, especially what we are
2 talking about now, during cross-examination.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll rephrase the question.
4 Q. Snjezana Delic testified that a curfew was imposed but that Serbs
5 could move around as they wished. Your counsel did not challenge that.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio, if I recall correctly, at the very
8 beginning of this trial, there was a discussion about this, whether if
9 another counsel asked a question, the other counsel should repeat. I
10 remember this. And we avoided repetition of similar questions by
11 different counsel. So it's not fair to put it that way.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: I'll leave the curfew, if Your Honours please.
13 Q. Snjezana Delic testified that she lost her job as a teacher. Any
14 reason to disagree with that?
15 A. No reason. When the war began, the elementary school ceased to
17 Q. Snjezana Delic testified that the police were looking for her
18 brother following April of 1992. Any reason to disagree with that?
19 A. I have no reason to either agree or disagree. I simply don't
20 remember about her brother, and I do not know who her brother is. But I
21 believe she said before this Tribunal that Serbs had taken, via Belgrade,
22 into Serbia. I think that's what she said.
23 Q. Thank you. Snjezana Delic testified that she had an opportunity
24 to see the mass arrests of Croat and Muslim men. Any reason to challenge
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Di Fazio, we're going back to the discussion of
2 mass arrests. We've been through that I think more than twice.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours pleases, I've got a few more
4 questions to get to a particular point.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, but don't repeat matters that have been
6 discussed before. Please avoid that.
7 MR. DI FAZIO:
8 Q. You said that the mass murders of detainees at Crkvina was a
9 matter that was commonly known; correct? You can answer that with a
10 simple yes or a no, I assure you.
11 A. Most people knew. I can't say everyone knew. My own child, for
12 example, didn't know, so what exactly do we imply when we say "everyone
13 knew"? Most of those who knew, knew.
14 Q. Thank you. Exhibit P124, the gazette, the attention I drew you
15 to, resulted in the disenfranchisement of Croats and Muslims; correct?
16 A. I don't know what it was that disenfranchised the Croats and
17 Muslims. I don't think there is any inherent logic in the question. The
18 information on Crkvina, do you mean that that in some way disenfranchised
20 Q. In the Serbian municipality of Bosanski Samac, Croats and Muslims
21 no longer had their representatives at body?
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Isn't this a repetition of --
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, it is a repetition, please, and I --
24 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm not allowing it. That's all.
25 MR. DI FAZIO:
1 Q. Did Snjezana Delic have a choice in whether she remained or was
2 exchanged in Bosanski Samac?
3 A. She did have a choice. She was able to stay. But her husband
4 decided to go, so probably she followed her husband. She testified before
5 this Tribunal that she had no work obligation, that she was at home, that
6 she was receiving humanitarian aid, as all other citizens. Her husband
7 was in detention. He opted to go and she accepted that.
8 Q. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Tadic.
9 JUDGE MUMBA: Re-examination, Mr. Lukic?
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you to Mr. Di Fazio.
11 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, in re-direct, if I may, of course.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
14 Re-examined by Mr. Pantelic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tadic, I just want to clarify a few points.
16 My learned friend Mr. Di Fazio asked you some questions about the work of
17 the multiparty local assembly in Samac before April 1992, after the
18 elections of 1990 an assembly was constituted. Do you know that from the
19 end of 1991 until April 1992, in the local parliament or assembly of
20 Samac, there was outvoting and the work was being blocked? Did you hear
21 about this?
22 A. I heard about it through the media.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I object to that question.
24 It doesn't arise at all from the questioning that I conducted --
25 JUDGE MUMBA: From the cross-examination.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: From the cross-examination. My cross-examination
2 on the topic was simply the existence of those bodies, not its
3 functionings, and now Mr. Pantelic is going into that particular topic.
4 It simply didn't arise.
5 MR. PANTELIC: That is exactly the point. I'm grateful to my
6 learned friend that he actually confirmed my position. His question was
7 strictly related to the functioning of the multiparty Samac local
8 assembly, and I just want to clarify this issue. We all know that --
9 MR. DI FAZIO: No. My questions were not relating to the actual
10 functioning of the body. My questions were relating to the existence of
11 that body. I did not go into its work, into its activities, between 1991
12 and 1992, so the question does not arise.
13 MR. PANTELIC: With all due respect, maybe that's a kind of the
14 game of the words. Existence is one thing and the functioning -- maybe
15 it's a question of understanding.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: No, Mr. Pantelic. The point is clear. If you're
17 talking about existence that they were established, as to whether or not
18 they carried out any functions or made, for instance, is another point.
20 MR. PANTELIC: In that sense --
21 JUDGE MUMBA: So the objection is sustained.
22 MR. PANTELIC: My question was related to that sense, yes. I will
23 try to rephrase the question.
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tadic, did you know anything at the time
25 about the fact that the commander of the Territorial Defence and the chief
1 of police were appointed contrary to the legislation then in force? We
2 are talking about April 1992. Did you hear about this?
3 A. I did. I mean, I heard about the changes. I don't know whether
4 they were lawful or not. I didn't go into that. It was a relatively
5 brief period of time and I didn't know anything special about it.
6 Q. My next topic, Mr. Tadic, or rather, the next topic broached by
7 the Prosecution, refers to the 16th and 17th of April, 1992, and it is
8 connected to the previous topic of the functioning of the assembly.
9 On the 17th, 18th, and 19th of April, the 20th of April, or
10 rather, the first week after the 17th of April, did you see Mr. Mato Nujic
11 around town, a Croat, who was the president of the previous Municipal
13 A. No, I didn't see Mr. Mato Nujic, either on the 16th or in the days
14 before or after that date. I didn't see him in that period at all, in
15 those five or six days before the 16th, or after the 16th.
16 Q. Tell me, Mr. Tadic: As for some other important people whom you
17 probably knew and who are Croats, did you see them in the period after the
18 17th of April, 1992, in Samac?
19 A. Before and after the 16th, I didn't move around a lot, and I
20 didn't see them, but I'm sure that after the 16th they were no longer in
21 Samac. They left before the 16th.
22 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honours, could you just bear with me for a
23 second, because my co-counsel just informed me that something in the
24 transcript is not ...
25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Where?
1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you. Just a correction for the
2 transcript. It's page 55, in my question between lines 11 and 13, I
3 mentioned also the other functioner Croat by nationality, local
4 functioner, the name is Mato Majanovic [phoen].
5 A. I didn't see him either, although I knew him personally.
6 MR. PANTELIC: Another question in line 24 for the court recorder.
7 Mr. Madjarevic, something like that. Yes. Thank you.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It will be corrected.
9 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you.
10 Q. [Interpretation] You also said, in response to certain questions
11 by my learned friend Mr. Di Fazio, concerning the functioning of another
12 municipality in 1992 and 1993, and that is Samac Domaljevac. That's
13 another municipality in Samac. You remember that?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. I only want to know whether you have any personal knowledge as to
16 whether the municipality of Samac Domaljevac had a Crisis Staff in that
18 A. It was the same in every municipality. You have heard here that
19 even villages had them. We heard a witness here, one that we have
20 mentioned just a while ago, who said that the village of Tisina also had a
21 Crisis Staff, so that every village, small or large, had this form of
22 authority. They all had their crisis staffs, so the same goes for Samac
23 Domaljevac. If I remember rightly, a man called Coskovic was the
24 secretary, or something or other, in the municipality of Samac, and then
25 he went over to the municipality of Domaljevac Samac.
1 Q. Thank you for this explanation. While we are on this topic, do
2 you have any personal knowledge about the functioning of the crisis
3 staffs, that is, when and under what conditions they were established?
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours please --
5 A. I don't --
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: -- this certainly did not arise in
8 cross-examination at all, directly or indirectly. It's an entirely fresh
9 and new topic. The functioning of crisis staffs outside of Samac, that
10 didn't -- simply didn't arise. It simply did not arise at all in any
11 sense, directly or indirectly, and it's entirely a new topic and we should
12 leave it.
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic.
14 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. The Prosecutor also asked you questions about civilian protection,
16 where you had a certain post, and you explained the protection of
17 buildings with sandbags and so on and so forth. Can you tell us whether,
18 in 1992 and 1993, or rather, how often Samac was shelled in this period,
19 in your estimation?
20 A. One could say that Samac was shelled very often, sometimes twice a
21 day, sometimes every other day, sometimes three times a day, and sometimes
22 not. I can tell you that for three years my wife slept in the basement.
23 For three years she was in the basement. She would never sleep in the
24 bedroom, although I did. But she was so afraid of the shelling, and that
25 was because shells fell daily. At least 20 shells landed close to my
2 MR. LAZAREVIC: Correction to the transcript. The witness was
3 referring to his wife's sister and not his wife.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No, no. I was talking about my
6 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.
7 MR. PANTELIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. In connection with a topic broached by the Prosecution, that is,
9 the detention centres in the schools and the Territorial Defence, do you
10 know when these detention centres in Samac stopped operating?
11 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, I think I'll stop you, because you're
12 now going into the general evidence. You're not dealing with matters
13 strictly dealing with your client's defence which might have been raised
14 in cross-examination.
15 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, my basis for this question was simply
16 to see when -- while we are still on the topic of civilian protection
17 staff and activities, when in fact in Samac these detention centres were
18 dismantled or abandoned or transferred, whatever.
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. What I'm saying is that is --
20 MR. PANTELIC: Strictly, Your Honour, related to the civilian
21 protection staff, nothing more.
22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. What I'm saying is: Is does not concern
23 strictly your client, so this is a matter which Mr. Lukic, if he wishes
24 to, should be dealing with.
25 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Yes, Your Honour. I will follow that
2 Q. [Interpretation] I'm now going to put questions to you about
3 Biljana Plavsic's statement to the Prosecution. You were also asked
4 questions concerning the Official Gazette and the deputies in the
5 Municipal Assembly, and so on. Mr. Tadic, do you have any knowledge of
6 whether, in the SDS in Samac, there were also non-Serbs by ethnicity?
7 A. As I was not in the immediate vicinity, I cannot remember whether
8 there were any non-Serbs. There may well have been, but I can't think of
9 any right now, because I haven't really thought about it.
10 Q. I know that you were not active in the party. That is not in
11 dispute. But you were a man about town, you knew quite a lot of people.
12 Darko Dujmusic, a Croat, do you know that he was a member of the SDS?
13 MR. DI FAZIO: This is now amounting to cross-examination. The
14 witness has said he doesn't -- he can't remember whether there were any
15 non-Serbs. That's the end of the matter. In my submission.
16 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic --
17 MR. PANTELIC: It's jogging his memory, Your Honour.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no, Mr. Pantelic. Will you sit down. Just sit
19 down. Let Mr. Lukic do the re-examination.
20 MR. PANTELIC: Okay. Thank you, Your Honour.
21 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour. [Interpretation] I ask that document
22 P163 ter be put before the witness
23 Re-examined by Mr. Lukic:
24 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Tadic, in your speech, do you use the Ekavian
25 dialect or the Ijekavian dialect, you personally?
1 A. I use the Ijekavian dialect.
2 Q. When you use the word "exchange," do you say razamijama [phoen] or
4 A. I say razmena.
5 Q. Would you please read what it says here in the title?
6 A. I'll read what it says down here. The army of Yugoslavia for the
7 exchange "razmena" of prisoners. And in other places also, I said that I
8 didn't type out this document; it was done by Mr. Mirko Strbac. That was
9 the man's name. And he typed this out and took it to his boss, and his
10 boss was this general who put a stamp on it, and that's on the basis of
11 this we got approval.
12 MR. LAZAREVIC: Page 59, line 22, it should read r-a-z-j-m-e-n-a.
13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think on the same note, if the words are of
14 striking importance, maybe the previous line, unless it will be
15 automatically corrected in the transcript, because you've mentioned two
16 words, and so on. So maybe we should make sure that we get them both
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The correct spelling.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Just as we heard from those
20 witnesses who said they heard people from Serbia speaking. A person from
21 Serbia would say razmena. We Serbia from Bosnia would say razmjena. They
22 would say belo, they would say bijelo. You can see quite clearly that
23 this was typed by someone who is from Serbia and who uses Serbian words.
24 And I explained how this document was created.
25 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I think it is clear enough now. I
1 think the witness has explained that the whole document is written in a
2 dialect which is Serbian, from Serbia.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
5 Q. Mr. Tadic, is there a stamp of the Crisis Staff on this document?
6 A. No. The only stamp on this document is that of the military
7 commission, General Tadinovic [phoen]. And you can see it down here. And
8 I just scribbled something on behalf of the Crisis Staff to avoid having
9 to go home and ask for a document. So to expedite matters, they helped me
10 by doing this.
11 Q. At the time this document was written, and you said it was
12 sometime in July 1992, did the Commission for Exchange in Samac exist
14 A. No, it didn't. He asked me whether it existed, and I said no, not
15 formally, but we were working on it. We were doing things. And he asked
16 me what I was doing, and when I explained what I was doing, he said:
17 "Well, that's not really the sort of institution that would ask for this
18 approval." So that's how we reached this -- we came to write this
20 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm finished with this document.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I just add: "It says Saturday
22 the 11th of July, 1992," and it was because of the problems around the
23 gentleman mentioned here. We changed the date and said the 4th of July in
24 order to avoid the return of Mr. Todorovic, although this was supposed to
25 be on the 11th, we actually carried out the exchange on the 4th. But it
1 had been planned or scheduled for the 11th.
2 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you. Just a moment.
3 Q. On the 19th of February, in response to the Prosecutor's question
4 as to whether you had a free hand concerning the exchanges, you said -- I
5 won't quote you, but you said you didn't, and you explained why, and you
6 said that had you been able to, you would have exchanged all for all, and
7 everything would have been finished. Did you say that?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. I want to know what you meant when you said that the business
10 would have been over, or the job would have been done. What did you mean
11 by your job or your business?
12 A. My only wish was to deliver these people from the situation they
13 were in, whatever side they were on. Very little has been said about this
14 here, but now I have an opportunity to say that this was the most humane
15 work to be done at the time.
16 Q. Was your job to fulfil the wishes of all those who wanted to cross
17 from one side to the other? Is that how you understood your job?
18 A. I don't ever want something to happen to others that you don't
19 wish to happen to you, and that I fully agree with. Whatever I did to
20 them, I want to be done to me under certain circumstances. The
21 circumstances were what they were, and I did everything in my power, and
22 had I been in their situation, I would have been happy had they done this
23 for me.
24 Q. The Prosecutor, on the same day, said, when he asked you a
25 question about detention units, whether these were reception centres or
1 camps, and he was referring to the TO, the SUP, the primary school, and
2 the secondary school, and he asked you to say whether you agreed with the
3 statement that this was not the kind of traditional prison that existed in
4 the 1980s and 1990s. Do you remember?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Do you know that during the 1970s and 1980s in Samac, and you
7 lived in Samac at that time, that hundreds of pieces of illegal weapons
8 were found?
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, if Your Honours please --
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
11 MR. DI FAZIO: This is not -- this is not a topic that arose in
12 cross-examination. The only point of raising the issue of his knowledge
13 of traditional prisons was in fact it arose, from what I recall, from a
14 question from the Bench. It's just to distinguish the normal traditional
15 prison from the institutions that were set up in Bosanski Samac. That was
16 the only point. It was purely a device to clarify the situation in
17 Bosanski Samac, not to -- yes, not to go into the issue of traditional
18 prisons generally, and that's what my friend is doing. The question is:
19 Do you know that during the 1970s and 1980s you lived in Samac, and he's
20 actually putting, as well as the issue not arising, he's actually putting
21 matters to the witness. It's cross-examination.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I must explain. What I
23 am about to ask is directly related to the cross-examination, because the
24 first series of questions by the Prosecutor was related to whether
25 detention had been set up because of exchange. And then he followed this
1 by saying that there was no detention -- or detention centres in Samac in
2 the 1970s and 1980s. So now I must clarify what the witness actually
3 understands when he says detention, because that exactly was the
4 Prosecutor's question. The question was whether detention centres were
5 set up for the exchange to take place later on. And if you want me to, I
6 can quote the exact section of the Prosecutor's questions.
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: I've got no problems with Mr. Lukic seeking
9 clarification of what Mr. Tadic meant by detention centres. I have no
10 particular problem with that question, it's just the embarking into
11 descriptions of traditional prisons from the 1970s and 1980s. It simply
12 doesn't arise. It's that.
13 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think there's another question, Mr. Lukic, with
14 we haven't heard anything about hundreds of pieces of illegal weapons
15 being found in -- you don't mention whose hands in the 1970s and 1980s.
16 That is clearly not part of the indictment, and certainly to my
17 recollection hasn't been raised in connection with Mr. Tadic.
18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think the explanation by Mr. Di Fazio is
19 clear, and I would like also to warn Mr. Tadic that because he's listening
20 to this exchange, not to go back to what is not being allowed.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I fully agree, Your Honours. I just
22 wanted to clarify the answer which the Prosecution wanted to take for
23 granted as to my client's understanding of what detention centres were and
24 whether there were reasons for such detention centres as qualified by the
25 Prosecution to be set up in the first place.
1 Q. Mr. Tadic, the Prosecution asked you to say whether you did
2 anything on the night of the 16th and 17th of April, when you went through
3 the experience that you had to go through, when you heard sounds of
4 shooting. Your answer was that phone lines were down on that particular
5 night. My question is: Were you trying actually during that night to get
6 in touch with anyone to find out what was happening?
7 A. Mr. Di Fazio asked me about my being worried. All I can say:
8 Your worry must be proportional to the level of information on the actual
9 events that you have.
10 JUDGE MUMBA: The question put to you by Mr. Lukic is clear, and
11 just stick to the question. Just answer the question. You don't have to
12 go back or explain anything.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Tadic, we've spoken about a wide range of subjects, both in
15 the examination-in-chief and in the cross-examination. During that night,
16 did you at any point attempt to find out what was going on over the phone?
17 A. I've already said that, and several times. At first, the phone
18 lines just weren't working. The lines were down. I wasn't able to speak
19 to anyone. When phones started working again in the morning, I did ring
20 up several people and I talked to those people.
21 Q. My question was only whether you made any attempts to reach anyone
22 by phone, and when you saw that the phone lines were down, did you still
23 want to find out what was happening?
24 A. I can't know that the phone lines are down unless I try phoning
25 someone. So when I realised that phones weren't working, I still tried
1 several times when the phone lines started working again, I did speak to a
2 friend who lived at the other end of the town and I found out about the
4 Q. During your cross-examination, you said that in the morning you
5 spoke to Commander Antic and that he told you that you needn't come and
6 that he would call you when your presence was required. You repeated this
7 twice, both in the examination-in-chief and in the cross-examination. My
8 question is: The order of a senior officer in the army not to do anything
9 and to wait, is that considered an order as well?
10 A. Yes, that's certainly an order, because in the army, the rule that
11 everyone adheres to is carry out an order and complain afterwards.
12 Q. Can we just go into private session for a moment, please?
13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll go into private session.
14 [Private session]
12 Page 15791 – redacted – private session
3 [Open session]
4 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session.
5 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. I will now ask you a number of questions resulting from today's
7 cross-examination, and the issue was referred to by Mr. Di Fazio during
8 the cross-examination. He asked you about the arrests. You spoke already
9 about Todorovic informing you of those arrests. My question is
10 specifically: Why were people being arrested, to the best of your
11 knowledge? Why were people detained in Bosanski Samac?
12 A. I think the question could best be answered by Todorovic himself,
13 but what I can tell you is now, from this case, I learned most of what I
14 know about the arrests. I don't know why the arrests were made. I
15 suppose because people failed to turn over their weapons, because they
16 kept weapons secretly, because they kept explosives secretly. I think
17 that's as far as I know. I would not dare go as far as to say that people
18 were also arrested for minor infringements, in a manner of speaking.
19 Q. Mr. Tadic, do you know that even a single person was arrested in
20 order to simply be exchanged in the territory of Bosanski Samac?
21 A. No. First of all, the people who were arrested had nothing to do
22 with any of the exchanges. They had nothing to do with people from Novi
23 Grad. Therefore, these two just cannot be connected.
24 Q. The Prosecution asked you today, and asked you to agree, that the
25 only way for persons to escape detention was to -- for them to agree to be
1 exchanged. You said it was one of the ways. My question is the
2 following. We have heard this already in testimonies before this
3 Tribunal, even in your own testimony, but I would like now for this to tie
4 up with the question asked you by the Prosecutor. If any person was
5 granted the right to be exchanged and the person refused, would the person
6 go back to detention?
7 A. No, and we have seen a number of such cases. All those who
8 refused to be exchanged went home. That was the result of the first
9 exchange ever, when the International Red Cross informed us of this
10 obligation, and we complied with it, to the letter. Many of the witnesses
11 have confirmed this. It was not my will for Mr. Borbeli to get off near
12 the church and to go straight home. He knew that from before.
13 Q. My following question, related again to the Prosecution question:
14 The release of these persons from detention, was it ever dependent upon
15 their subsequent exchange?
16 A. Frankly, I don't think I fully understand your question.
17 Q. Did they have a choice? That was my question. They could either,
18 A, go to an exchange; B, go home. So my next question following from
19 this --
20 A. They could go to an exchange or they could go home, so the choice
21 was up to them what they would do.
22 Q. Would they have remained in detention had they refused to go for
23 an exchange?
24 A. Yes, had they not decided to go to an exchange, they would have
25 remained in detention.
1 Q. If there was a case brought before a Tribunal and approval granted
2 for a person to be exchanged, you said the police and the competent
3 military organs were in charge of that. That's what you said. And this
4 person was granted approval to go to an exchange. If this person refused
5 to go to an exchange, where would the person go?
6 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: I don't recall there being any reference to any
9 tribunals at all in the course of the cross-examination, and it hasn't
10 arisen in any of the previous answers of the witness in re-examination.
11 It's entirely a new topic, as far as I can see, and there's been no
12 explanation of it or how it arises from cross-examination.
13 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I didn't really -- this question was
14 not addressed to the Tribunal.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: No. I understand that. He's talking -- Mr. Lukic
16 is talking about some sort of courts or tribunals, I believe. In addition
17 to the objections that I just mentioned, I also object on the basis that
18 it is a highly leading question. It's putting the answer straight into
19 the mouth of Mr. Tadic.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Just a moment, please. Just a moment,
23 Q. Mr. Tadic, my question was: Why were people being arrested? And
24 you said that people were arrested because of suspicion that they had
25 committed illegal acts. That's what you said.
1 A. That's correct.
2 Q. I'm not going any further into this. I just wanted to quote. My
3 question is very simple: Could anyone go to an exchange without
4 previously receiving permission, approval, from the police or the army?
5 A. We've ascertained that a couple of times. They couldn't leave.
6 Q. Once the exchange of a certain person was approved that the person
7 could go and be exchanged, could they of their own free will decide to
8 stay in Samac?
9 A. Yes, people could decide to stay in Samac, but it was common
10 practice that they should go to the separation line, because no one would
11 have believed that the person wanted to stay. People literally had to go
12 as far as the separation line to declare themselves unwilling to leave,
13 and then they would go back.
14 Q. So that was a purely formal thing. But essentially --
15 A. Yes, essentially, people would have been allowed to remain in
16 Samac, and some people actually did.
17 Q. If, for example, the police approve for a person to go for an
18 exchange and the person refuses, would the police have any right to keep
19 the person in detention?
20 A. Well, the police can do just about anything, but they shouldn't do
21 just about anything. I don't remember there were any such cases where
22 this happened.
23 Q. Mr. Tadic, during the period that you worked on these exchanges,
24 do you know that anyone from the Samac municipal territory was exchanged
25 against their will, that a person wanted to stay, and that despite this,
1 they were exchanged? Have you heard of any such cases occurring?
2 A. Not a single one. No one was expelled by force from Samac. All
3 those who left applied to leave of their own free will and eventually left
4 of their own free will, or returned. No one was kept back in Samac either
5 by force.
6 Q. That was to be my next question. Do you know that anyone in Samac
7 expressed their desire to leave and were forbidden to leave, if all the
8 conditions that you've talked about had been met?
9 A. Once the conditions were met, no one was forbidden to leave. No
10 one was kept back, held back by force in Samac. There were people who met
11 the conditions and yet they decided to stay. They were free to go. They
12 went as far as the separation line, but there they declared themselves
13 unwilling to leave and then they would return to Samac.
14 Q. The exchanges in which you took part, was the work related to
15 ethnic separation or was this about bringing families back together?
16 A. Very little has been said about the humanitarian aspect of the
17 whole thing here. One of the crucial principles was to bring families
18 back together, and this applied to Croats, Muslims, and Serbs equally.
19 Little has been said about that, about how the sick and the wounded were
20 transferred to the other side. All those people who were transferred from
21 one area to another, there was a possibility for them always at a certain
22 point to return to their own place or town. Not everyone was in a
23 position to take advantage of this right, especially Serbs. They did. We
24 had witness, my witness, who went of his own free will to Gradacac, then
25 he returned, and today he has the same job, the same position as he used
1 to have. He was in a deposition, so we didn't hear much about him.
2 Q. You can rest assured that the Trial Chamber will study that
3 testimony too.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. This
5 concludes my re-direct examination.
6 Questioned by the Court:
7 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Okay. I just have one small question, Mr. Tadic,
8 just leading on from what Mr. Lukic has been asking you, and I wonder
9 whether, to your knowledge, in connection with your part in the exchanges,
10 whether you know of anyone who had been severely beaten in one of the
11 detention centres, the TO, the SUP, the schools, et cetera, in Bosanski
12 Samac, who went to the line of separation, on the buses and so on, and
13 decided not to be exchanged, was returned back to Bosanski Samac, and was
14 just allowed to go back to his or her apartment or home. Do you know of
15 anybody in that category who had been severely beaten, who went to the
16 line and returned home and was not detained any further?
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know of such details. I
18 can't say that about the people who returned. It's true that people were
19 maltreated to a lesser extent. Those who were maltreated to a greater
20 extent, because of the fear that they acquired, I don't know that any of
21 these people came back. I know that those who were maltreated badly, that
22 these people have not come back.
23 JUDGE WILLIAMS: Thank you.
24 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Mr. Tadic, if my memory serves me right, you told
25 us during your testimony that somewhat more than 1.000, either Muslims or,
1 in most cases, Croats, went or left the municipality of Bosanski Samac
2 through the exchange lists. Is that correct?
3 A. That's correct.
4 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Okay. But there were a lot of people, mostly
5 Croats, I think, but also Muslims, leaving the municipality in other ways,
6 not through the lists, but in other ways. Do you have any, so to say,
7 idea of the number of people leaving in other ways and by other means than
8 through the exchange lists? And as a follow-up question: What was the
9 reason for their leaving the municipality?
10 A. The reason was that the area was affected by war or that the war
11 was very close and later came to the area. I would just like to remind
12 you that many witnesses have already said this here. I won't mention
13 names of witnesses, but one of our last witnesses said that about 400
14 people from Zasavica, before the 16th of April, at the request of the
15 Odzak Crisis Staff, went over to Odzak, and that about 170 of them
16 remained in Zasavica as a sort of guard or something like that. And I
17 have said that my friend, Pero Tomic, who was a high-ranking official in
18 the HDZ, stayed there.
19 Another witness who was also mentioned here towards the end told
20 us that in his parish there were about four and a half thousand Croats and
21 that before hostilities broke out, about 4.000 of his parishioners left
22 the area and went mostly to Croatia, to the West, to all sorts of places.
23 And he said that about 450 people stayed behind in his parish; that in
24 mid-May, Mr. Braco Blazanovic, who was a teacher of the Serbian-Croatian
25 language, later went to Brod and fell in with a group of armed Croatian
1 soldiers, met the bus, if you remember, and riddled it with bullets. And
2 this witness said that they took about 250 --
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- took about 250 men away. These
5 are numbers that have been shown here.
6 A witness from Gornji Hasici said that a lot of people left Gornji
7 Hasici before these events, that his entire family - his wife, his
8 children, and everybody else - left and that he remained there on his own
9 in Samac. You have been able see, and I will mention only Sulejman Tihic,
10 who said that his entire family left. Hasan Bicic, Muhamed Bicic, their
11 whole families left. Dragan Lukac, all his family left Samac, and so on
12 and so forth. So that most of the population left before the event that
13 took place between the 16th and the 17th of April, 1992.
14 [Trial Chamber confers]
15 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Well, Mr. Tadic, I have no wish whatsoever to
16 prolong my questioning, but you are now giving examples about isolated
17 cases comprising, lets say, ten people, a hundred people, and 250 people,
18 and so on. But if I'm correct and my memory serves me right, it's a
19 question of thousands, and perhaps ten thousands of people, leaving the
20 municipality of Samac, after the hostilities broke out.
21 A. Your Honour, I said that 4.000 people left. But if you know that
22 the area that was part of the Serbian municipality of Samac did not have
23 the thousands that are mentioned here. The village of Prud, which was
24 once part of the municipality of Samac, had close to 2.000 inhabitants,
25 but it was left out of these events. They didn't go anywhere.
1 Furthermore, Grebnice, a village that also had a large population, Bazik,
2 which also had many inhabitants, and Domaljevac, which was the largest
3 village in Posavina. All these villages remained in the area of the
4 municipality of Samac-Domaljevac, or rather, Domaljevac-Samac. Kornica
5 which also used to belong to Samac and had about 2.000 inhabitants, also
6 at that time did not belong to the Serbian municipality of Samac. I don't
7 want to add these numbers up, but if we do, we shall see that this is not
8 nearly the number that is being mentioned here.
9 JUDGE LINDHOLM: So, in conclusion - and I'm now referring to
10 paragraph number 28 in the fifth amended indictment - it reads as follows:
11 "Prior to the 17th of April, 1992, almost 17.000 Bosnian Croats and
12 Bosnian Muslims of a total population of 33.000 lived in the municipality
13 of Bosanski Samac. Following the forcible takeover of the Bosanski Samac
14 municipality by Serb forces, the majority of the non-Serb residents fled
15 or were forced," and so on and so. These are the figures that are
16 mentioned, and you are challenging these figures. Do I understand you
18 A. No, I'm not challenging; I'm simply telling you facts. You can't
19 say that Prud was expelled anywhere, because it was not in the Serbian
20 municipality of Samac, so it couldn't be expelled. Domaljevac, Bazik,
21 Grebnice, were not in the Serbian municipality of Samac. You cannot speak
22 of the expulsion of the people from Kornica when they were not part of the
23 Serbian municipality of Samac. The same goes for Srednja Slatina. None
24 of these places were in the area. I wish I had a map here so that I could
25 show you what this looks like. It's hard now to tell you these numbers
1 off the top of my head, but Domaljevac had over 6.000 inhabitants, and
2 these people were never expelled. They remained there. Bazik had 2.000
3 and they remained there. Grebnice, almost all of them remained in
4 Grebnice. Prud, almost everyone remained in Prud. Kornica, everybody
5 remained in Kornica. Part of Slatina, Srednja Slatina or central Slatina,
6 everybody stayed there.
7 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Thank you so much.
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I have no questions. I think Mr.
10 Tadic has now given us a very clear demographic picture, which I hope will
11 be corroborated by an expert witness later on.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.
13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Tadic, we are about to run out of tape. I've
15 just been informed. So if there is anything you want to add, maybe we
16 should have a break. We can have a 20-minute break and then come back.
17 We'll take our break for 20 minutes.
18 --- Recess taken at 5.57 p.m.
19 --- On resuming at 6.21 p.m.
20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Tadic.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I would just like to
22 say two or three sentences about these interpretations relating to the
23 taking of bribes. I didn't want to spoil the Prosecutor's line of
24 questioning, and I want to say this for the sake of my descendents, if you
25 will allow me.
1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Tadic. You can go ahead.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In here is a photograph of my
3 grandchildren. I swear that everything that has been said about money is
4 a fabrication. I never asked anyone to give me money, nor have I ever
5 taken money from anyone. I include Serbs, together with Muslims and
6 Croats, because many Serbs have said the same. Thank you.
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Lukic.
9 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, do you wish it to be
10 reflected in the record that the witness held a Bible in his hand while he
11 said those words? Just for the sake of the record.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes. I didn't say that these were
13 the holy scriptures, and inside is a photo of my grandchildren.
14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. This is on order. Thank you, Mr. Tadic. We
15 have now finished with your evidence and you may return to your usual
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you, and you too.
18 [The witness stands down]
19 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lukic, the other witnesses are the videolink and
20 the Rule 92 bis; is that so?
21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] That's correct. The Defence of
22 Mr. Miroslav Tadic has two more witnesses by videolink. That's next week.
23 And after that, depending on the decision handed down by the Chamber, if
24 there is cross-examination by the OTP, then these witnesses will be
25 called. We have a few more documents to be tendered, and we will consider
1 with the OTP this matter in connection with the lists for exchange, and
2 also another document that is part of the Defence of Mr. Tadic.
3 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.
4 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] Demographic expert opinion.
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I think that is under way.
6 Mr. Pisarevic.
7 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Good day, Your Honours. On behalf
8 of the Defence of Mr. Zaric, which is to begin, before we call the first
9 witness into the courtroom, I wish to address the Chamber --
10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.
11 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] -- and ask the Chamber to instruct
12 me, and possibly allow me to put forward a plan for the presentation of
13 evidence on behalf of Mr. Zaric. First I wish to inform you that
14 Mr. Zaric's Defence has received from this Chamber approval to call 18
15 viva voce witnesses. In view of the number of viva voce witnesses - this
16 is a considerable number and will take some time - we now kindly request
17 that after we complete the examination of these viva voce witnesses, that
18 the Defence of Mr. Zaric pause in its presentation of evidence and then
19 present 92 bis evidence, after which Mr. Zaric would testify. It would be
20 very exhausting for the Defence to have Mr. Zaric testify directly after
21 these 18 witnesses before the Trial Chamber, and this is his decision. I
22 therefore kindly request that you give me instructions as to whether it is
23 possible to organise Mr. Zaric's defence in this way.
24 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, if I may just add to this submission
25 of my learned friend. I just received the instruction of my client,
1 Mr. Blagoje Simic, and the position of Defence of Mr. Blagoje Simic is
2 that we would like to oppose this suggestion of my learned friend, since
3 it is not in the interests of Mr. Blagoje Simic. I don't know what is the
4 position of Defence --
5 JUDGE MUMBA: Why? What are the reasons?
6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Because we shall have a certain number of
7 witnesses, each of three Defence teams, and during the testimony of these
8 witnesses, we could have the facts of the importance for this trial
9 proceedings. So we would not like to have Mr. Simo Zaric, at the very end
10 of the case, at the last -- I would say last witness, then we shall not
11 be -- of course we shall have possibility in rebuttal or rejoinder
12 proceedings to clarify some things, but -- simply this is the position of
13 the Defence of Blagoje Simic. I leave it to the Trial Chamber for the
14 final decision, of course.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will allow the Defence of Mr. Simo
17 Zaric to arrange the call of their evidence, including the accused,
18 according to their own strategy. Indeed, every accused person is free to
19 arrange their own presentation of the defence, according to their own
20 strategy. The Trial Chamber hasn't given any instructions contrary to
21 that, so I don't see why Mr. Pantelic should have any objection. He
22 decided how he was going to present the defence of his own client,
23 according to his own strategy. The only thing is: Because of the
24 complications we have -- for instance, we have videolink witnesses coming
25 more or less in the middle, we have to deal with that because of the
1 mechanics of arranging for a videolink. So there we have no choice. We
2 have to hear all the witnesses at the same time, regardless of whose
3 defence they are supporting. Otherwise, for the rest of the arrangements,
4 it depends on the Defence counsel, together with the instructions of his
5 own client. So --
6 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, if I may just add, in order to clarify
7 the position: If that would be the case, we don't have any objections to
8 the position of Mr. Zaric's Defence to have all their witnesses and
9 finally including the accused, Mr. Zaric, by the end of their case. But
10 accordingly, we would like to have our 92 bis witnesses after the closing
11 of Mr. Zaric's case. Simple as that. According to our strategy. So if
12 it's not in big contrast with the other Defence teams, that would be the
13 position of --
14 JUDGE MUMBA: No. I think there is a misunderstanding here.
15 Because the Trial Chamber is aware that you still have your Rule the 92
16 bis witnesses to call. My earlier ruling does not mean that your
17 witnesses can't come before Mr. Zaric's defence is concluded. I'm just
18 discussing Mr. Zaric's defence, the sequence of calling their evidence.
19 Whether some witnesses will come and then another person's witnesses will
20 come in the middle and -- you know, that's what I was discussing. That's
21 what I was dealing with.
22 MR. PANTELIC: I have no problem with that at all. But the
23 other --
24 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the Trial Chamber is looking at the
25 statements to decide which ones should come for cross-examination. So the
1 ruling will be given in due course.
2 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Thank you.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE MUMBA: So we'll proceed and call the first witness.
5 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
6 [The witness entered court]
7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Please make the solemn declaration.
8 WITNESS: MAKSIM SIMEUNOVIC
9 [Witness answered through interpreter].
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak
11 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Please sit down.
13 Yes, Mr. Pisarevic.
14 Examined by Mr. Pisarevic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good day, Mr. Simeunovic. Before we begin, I
16 will give you some instructions in order for your testimony to fulfil its
17 function, or rather, in order that everything you say will be properly
18 recorded. Therefore, if you have any problems in hearing the question, if
19 there is something wrong with the headset, for example, please let me know
20 immediately. Furthermore, I ask you to listen to the question and then
21 pause a few seconds before giving your reply. Don't hurry too much, but
22 don't speak too slowly either. You will find the pace that will enable
23 the interpreters to hear you, and then the Chamber will be able to follow
24 through the interpretation your testimony. Do we understand each other?
25 A. Yes, I understand you, and I can hear you very well.
1 Q. Thank you. Would you please tell us your first and last name.
2 A. My name is Maksim Simeunovic.
3 Q. What is your date of birth?
4 A. I was born on the 3rd of August, 1949.
5 Q. Please tell us your place of birth.
6 A. My place of birth is Pelagicevo, in the municipality of
8 Q. Can you tell us in what country Pelagicevo, the town and the
9 municipality, is?
10 A. In the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
11 Q. Thank you. Where did you live up to the 17th of April, 1992?
12 A. Up to the 17th of April, 1992, I lived in Brcko.
13 Q. Tell us, please: Where do you live now? In what town?
14 A. I still live in Brcko.
15 Q. Thank you. Are you married?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. How many children have you got?
18 A. I have one child.
19 Q. Would you tell me what school you completed?
20 A. I have five levels of education.
21 Q. Thank you. Will you tell us what your status is now, what you do
23 A. I'm retired.
24 Q. Did you serve in the Yugoslav People's Army? When and where?
25 A. Yes, I did serve in the Yugoslav People's Army, in the school for
1 reserve officers of armoured and mechanised units. I went to school in
2 Banja Luka and I did my training period in Osijek.
3 Q. Can you tell me where Osijek is after the break-up of the former
5 A. It's in the Republic of Croatia.
6 Q. Thank you. What rank did you have as a reserve officer when you
7 left the JNA?
8 A. I left the JNA as a lieutenant colonel of armoured mechanised
10 Q. Were you a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia?
11 A. Yes, I was a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.
12 Q. Can you tell me from when to when?
13 A. I was a member from 1967 until the League of Communists of
14 Yugoslavia ceased to exist.
15 Q. What year was that?
16 A. That was in 1990.
17 Q. Thank you. After the League of Communists of Yugoslavia ceased to
18 exist, did you become a member of another political party?
19 A. Yes. I became a member of the SDP.
20 Q. Is that short for the Social Democrats?
21 A. Yes, that's correct.
22 Q. Was that party in Bosnia-Herzegovina?
23 A. Yes. It's a party which sort of continued the work of the
24 Communists' League of Yugoslavia, in a way.
25 Q. Thank you. Are you now presently a member of any political party?
1 A. Yes. I am a member of the league -- my apologies. I am a member
2 of the Socialist Party of the -- of Republika Srpska.
3 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us: What is your ethnic
4 background, your nationality?
5 A. I am a Serb.
6 Q. Which religion do you belong to?
7 A. I am a Christian, an Orthodox Christian.
8 Q. After you completed your compulsory military service with the JNA,
9 what was your military assignment?
10 A. Upon completion of my military service, and pursuant to an order
11 of the Ministry for All People's Defence of the Republic of
12 Bosnia-Herzegovina, my assignment was to a war unit of the Yugoslav
13 People's Army.
14 Q. Let's get this clear straight away. These were not Territorial
15 Defence units of Bosnia-Herzegovina?
16 A. No, they weren't Territorial Defence units of Bosnia and
18 Q. When you were assigned to this military unit, what was your
19 position within that unit?
20 A. I was assigned to the 2nd Armoured Battalion of the 395th Brigade
21 in Brcko. I was the assistant commander for information and security.
22 Q. Can you please tell us which year that happened?
23 A. That was in March 1972.
24 Q. Can you please tell us how long you stayed with that war
25 assignment and in that position?
1 A. I kept this assignment and my position as the assistant commander
2 for information and security -- I stayed until the 8th of March, 1992.
3 Q. Thank you. When you returned from your military service in the
4 JNA, where did you find a job?
5 A. Upon completion of my military service, I found a job in the Luka
6 company based in Brcko.
7 Q. How long did you stay with that company, and did you change jobs;
8 if so, where did you go to?
9 A. I worked for six years for the Luka company in Brcko, and then I
10 changed jobs and I went to work with the JNA as civilian staff. I was a
11 mechanic in charge of weapon maintenance.
12 Q. Can you please tell us: What does civilian staff working for the
13 JNA really mean?
14 A. Civilian staff, or a civilian working for a JNA, is usually a
15 person charged with certain tasks. The working hours start at 8.00 in the
16 morning. And these persons never wear uniform.
17 Q. Do such persons have any military authority?
18 A. No, we had no military authority, in the sense of power to do
20 Q. Did you have a particularly favourable conditions for retirement?
21 A. No. We had the same conditions for retirement as all other
22 citizens of Bosnia-Herzegovina who worked in other sectors.
23 Q. Thank you. Can you please tell us now: From that job, from that
24 position as civilian staff in the JNA, where did you go, and when did that
1 A. I stopped working as civilian staff in the JNA when I responded to
2 the mobilisation call-up and when I reported to my war unit of the JNA.
3 Q. Can you specify when exactly this happened, which unit that was,
4 and which position within that unit you assumed?
5 A. That was the 2nd Armoured Battalion of the 395th Motorised Brigade
6 with headquarters in Brcko. I responded to the mobilisation call-up in
7 October 1991.
8 Q. Where was the headquarters of this unit?
9 A. The headquarters of the 2nd Armoured Battalion was in the village
10 of Donji Zabar, Orasje municipality.
11 Q. When you arrived there in Donji Zabar, Orasje municipality --
12 A. We arrived there. We reached the command post in mid-October. I
13 can't remember the exact date, but it was in mid-October 1991.
14 Q. At that time, in that territory, in that area, did any military
15 formation of the JNA exist which you were a part of?
16 A. Yes. The 17th Tactical Group of the JNA, and we were within their
17 zone of responsibility and we were immediately subordinated to that unit.
18 Q. Do you perhaps know pursuant to whose order the 17th Tactical
19 Group of the JNA was set up?
20 A. Yes, I do know pursuant to whose order. The 17th Tactical Group
21 was set up pursuant to the commander General Savo Jankovic's order, who
22 was the commander of the 17th Corps, based in Tuzla.
23 Q. Do you know which area was covered by the zone of responsibility
24 of the 17th Tactical Group of the JNA?
25 A. The zone of responsibility of the 17th Tactical Group were covered
1 part of Brcko municipality, Orasje municipality, Bosanski Samac
2 municipality, and part of Gradacac municipality.
3 Q. Do you know which military formations did the 17th Tactical Group
4 of the JNA comprise?
5 A. The 17th Tactical Group of the JNA comprised the command of the
6 17th Tactical Group, communications company, military police, five
7 infantry squads of the JNA, and the armoured battalion.
8 Q. This armoured battalion is the battalion in which you were working
9 as the officer in charge of information and security?
10 A. Yes. That's the battalion which was first in the 395th Brigade
11 and then became part of the 17th Tactical Group.
12 Q. Thank you. Can you please just tell us: Who was the commander of
13 that armoured battalion?
14 A. The commander was Major Dusko Zivanovic.
15 Q. Thank you. Do you know who was the commander of the 17th Tactical
16 Group of the JNA?
17 A. Pursuant to the order on the setting up of the 17th Tactical
18 Group, General Savo Jankovic also appointed Lieutenant Colonel Stevan
19 Nikolic as the commander of the 17th Tactical Group.
20 Q. Thank you. Do you know who was the chief in the 17th Tactical
21 Group of the JNA?
22 A. The chief of the 17th Tactical Group, pursuant to the same order,
23 was Major Brajkovic. I can't remember his last name -- I mean his first
25 Q. Thank you. Do you know where Commander Lieutenant Colonel Stevan
1 Nikolic and Chief Brajkovic originally hailed from, from which republic of
2 the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did they hail from?
3 A. I know they were both born in the Republic of Serbia, but their
4 places of birth specifically, I don't know.
5 Q. I only wanted to know about the Republic, nothing else. Can you
6 please tell us when you became the assistant commander for information and
7 security in the 17th Tactical Group of the JNA?
8 A. Pursuant to an order by the commander of the 17th Corps of the
9 JNA, General Savo Jankovic, I was moved from the armoured battalion, where
10 I was assistant commander for information and security, and became part of
11 the 17th Tactical Group. I became chief for information and security on
12 the 8th of March, 1992.
13 Q. Thank you. Do you know whether detachments from the 17th Tactical
14 Group had assistant commanders for intelligence and information?
15 A. Yes. Each detachment had an assistant commander. There was the
16 commander, the assistant commander, the deputy commander, and the
17 assistant for intelligence and security, and this also applies to the
18 armoured battalion from which I came.
19 Q. Thank you. Do you know who was the assistant commander for
20 intelligence and security in the 4th Detachment of the JNA, which was part
21 of the 17th Tactical Group of the JNA?
22 A. I do know that. The assistant commander for intelligence and
23 security in the 4th Detachment of the JNA, with headquarters in the town
24 of Samac, that was Simo Zaric.
25 Q. Do you know who the commander of the 4th Detachment of the JNA
2 A. Yes, I know. The commander was Radovan Antic, a captain?
3 Q. Within the purview of your duties, did you ever go to the command
4 of the 4th Detachment in Bosanski Samac?
5 A. Yes, I did go, quite often. I went to all the commands, because
6 that was part of my duty. I did rounds visiting the units.
7 Q. Can you then please tell us: Where was the command of the 4th
8 Detachment of the JNA located precisely?
9 A. The command of the 4th Detachment of the JNA was located in Sit,
10 the Samac textile industry in Samac.
11 Q. Whenever you were there, did you see any symbols on those
12 buildings, or any other marks?
13 A. Yes, I did. On the building where the command of the 4th
14 Detachment was based, there was the Yugoslav flag, and next to it there
15 was the flag of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
16 Q. Can you tell us how the detachment was structured, how it was
17 organised? Was it life in the barracks or was it a different kind of
18 thing? Can you tell us about the way the 4th Detachment looked and
19 functioned, and then about the other detachments which were part of the
20 17th Tactical Group?
21 A. The 4th Detachment, as well as all the other detachments which
22 were part of the 17th Tactical Group, they didn't have any barracks at
23 their disposal. We say the command of the detachment. Those were
24 actually two simple offices, offices which were part of the factory.
25 Those were being used by the command of the detachment, but there were no
1 barracks to speak of. That was just the formal headquarters of the
2 command. And there was a duty roster for members of the command who
3 worked there.
4 Q. Can you please tell us: How was it with the members of the
5 detachment? What were their activities? How was their life organised?
6 A. The other members, that's soldiers in detachments, as I said, they
7 had no barracks. They were just registered as members of the 4th
8 Detachment. They had their duties. They were given specific tasks, but
9 they stayed at their own homes and they went about their tasks in the
10 local economy agricultural tasks or perhaps their own private activities
11 and businesses. But they lived and slept at home.
12 MR. PISAREVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you.
13 Your Honours, I think this may be a convenient moment to break for
14 the day.
15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We'll continue our proceedings tomorrow.
16 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,
17 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 26th day of
18 February 2003, at 2.15 p.m.