Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20215

1 Wednesday, 4 June 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 [The witness entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Good morning. Please call the case.

7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. Case number IT-95-9-T, the

8 Prosecutor versus Blagoje Simic, Miroslav Tadic and Simo Zaric.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. I will address the witness, Mr. Antic. You

10 have to take the oath again, the solemn declaration, rather. Will you

11 please stand up?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

13 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

14 WITNESS: VASO ANTIC

15 [Witness answered through Interpreter]

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Please sit down. The last time you were

17 here, the Trial Chamber informed you that you were finished with your

18 evidence but we have now had to call you back to complete one part of the

19 evidence which the Prosecution wishes to deal with, according to the

20 ruling of the Appeals Chamber. So the Prosecution can go ahead.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, Your Honours.

22 Cross-examined by Mr. Di Fazio:

23 Q. Mr. Antic, I'll be not very long with you this morning and I've

24 only got one small area that I need to cover with you. Before I get to

25 the actual substance of the issue. Just let me remind you of what you

Page 20216

1 said on this topic on the last occasion you were here in April. You were

2 being asked questions by Mr. Pisarevic about the telephone call that you

3 received to get you to go to the radio station and get it functioning, and

4 this is very soon after the 17th. In fact it's on the 18th.

5 You said this: Page 18618, "On the 18th of July, I got a phone

6 call around 12.00, between 12.00 and 1300 hours. I heard the voice tell

7 me, this is the Crisis Staff. You have a mission and you must carry out

8 an order of the Crisis Staff. You have to make sure that the radio

9 Bosanski Samac becomes operational. I then proceeded to ask a few

10 questions but I was not given the permission to ask these questions. They

11 told me I must carry out my task, I should not ask any questions, but I

12 nevertheless wanted to know who was on the other side of the line and who

13 had ordered that, who is the representative of the Crisis Staff on the

14 telephone. And I was told, you know who is the President of the Crisis

15 Staff, and the Crisis Staff ordered the following. And it was the

16 President of the Crisis Staff, Mr. Blagoje Simic."

17 That was from questioning by Mr. Pisarevic. You recall that

18 evidence?

19 A. Yes, I do.

20 Q. I then cross-examined you, page 18644. Question: "First of all

21 on the 18th of April, Dr. Blagoje Simic called you and instructed you to

22 get the radio station up and operating, am I correct?" Answer: "No.

23 Stevan Todorovic was the one who gave me the instructions, according to

24 the orders of Blagoje Simic."

25 And then very shortly thereafter, at page 18645, I asked you this:

Page 20217

1 "I'm only interested in the telephone call. It was the voice of

2 Dr. Blagoje Simic and he was on the other end of the telephone. And he

3 gave you the instructions to get the radio station up and running."

4 Answer: "At the beginning of my testimony, I already said that a voice

5 called from the Crisis Staff, that person did not introduce himself and

6 even when I asked him who it was, he didn't want to tell me who it was,

7 but he said that Dr. Blagoje Simic, the President of the Crisis Staff,

8 ordered that the radio station should be up and operational." You recall

9 that evidence?

10 A. Yes, I do.

11 Q. And then I asked you this question, also at page 18645. "Have you

12 ever told anyone, particularly towards the end of last year, meaning 2002,

13 that it was Dr. Blagoje Simic who telephoned you and told you that the

14 radio had to be put back in order and start broadcasting programmes? Have

15 you ever told anyone that?" Answer: "I don't remember having ever told

16 that to anyone but I said that through an intermediary, through a person,

17 he had ordered that radio station should be put back in order." Do you

18 remember that evidence?

19 A. Yes, I remember that.

20 Q. So you don't recall ever having told anyone towards the end of

21 last year that it was Dr. Blagoje Simic who telephoned you and told you

22 that the radio had to be put back in order and start broadcasting

23 programmes and so I would like to refresh your memory.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown his 92 bis statement,

25 please, the unredacted version?

Page 20218

1 Q. Mr. Antic I would like you please to look at your statement that

2 you have placed in front of you, and you will find on the -- I believe the

3 third page, your attestation that the statement is true and correct and

4 your signature. Do you see that?

5 A. Yes.

6 Q. All right. And of course at the time that you provided that

7 statement to the officer of the Registry, you were endeavouring, weren't

8 you, to be as accurate and as truthful as you could be?

9 A. Yes.

10 Q. Thank you. Look at paragraph 15 of the statement. First

11 sentence, and please read it out.

12 A. "I think it was on the 18th of April, I was called on the phone by

13 Blagoje Simic, who was the President of the Crisis Staff, and he said that

14 the radio had to be put in order and that we had to start broadcasting

15 programmes."

16 Q. All right. Thank you.

17 MR. LAZAREVIC: It's a matter of translation.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Well --

19 MR. LAZAREVIC: Mr. Antic, in B/C/S, [B/C/S spoken] which could be

20 translated in various ways.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please.

22 MR. LAZAREVIC: It's just that objection. Maybe the interpreters

23 could give us couple of versions how can -- how this can be translated.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Well, I object.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Lazarevic, the Trial Chamber has got official

Page 20219

1 translation services and the interpreters are persons who have been

2 properly appointed by the Tribunal. So the Trial Chamber is bound by

3 their version of interpretation.

4 MR. DI FAZIO: And if it's of any comfort to the Trial Chamber the

5 answer that's interpreted is almost identical to that which is contained

6 in paragraph 15 as translated. Furthermore, I can assure the Trial

7 Chamber that I've been to no less than 3 interpreters and translators to

8 check that very first sentence.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber has no problem with the

10 interpretation received.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, yes, I accept that and I just wanted to

12 emphasise that point, if Your Honours please.

13 Q. Now, Mr. Antic, it's clear, in paragraph 15, that you said that

14 you were telephoned by Blagoje Simic. Having seen that, having refreshed

15 your memory as to what you said last year, is it your position now that

16 you were telephoned in fact by Mr. Blagoje Simic who instructed you to get

17 the radio station up and running?

18 A. It's stated quite clearly here. I think it was on the 18th of

19 April I was phoned by Blagoje Simic. This does not mean that I was

20 personally called by Blagoje Simic, by Blagoje Simic himself. Perhaps it

21 hasn't been put very well, but it really wasn't Blagoje Simic in person.

22 We are talking about Stevan Todorovic and Simeon Simic. They then told me

23 at that point that Blagoje Simic had ordered that the radio should start

24 functioning. I never said that I was called by him on that day. Later,

25 if I may explain, I phoned the Crisis Staff when I couldn't find anyone in

Page 20220

1 the radio, when I couldn't find any of the six journalists, technicians,

2 there, I phoned the Crisis Staff and Simic, Blagoje Simic, answered

3 personally. Then he said that everything had to be done with regard to

4 the radio. I had to phone Simeon Simic and Stevan Todorovic. I don't

5 know how else to explain that.

6 MR. DI FAZIO: Would Your Honours just bear with plea for a

7 moment, please?

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, thank you. No further questions.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Any Defence counsel wish to ask questions? I see

11 none.

12 Thank you very much, Mr. Antic, we are now through finally with

13 you. You may leave the courtroom.

14 [The witness withdrew]

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, I just want to find out from you that

16 whether or not you have now formally closed the case for the Defence of

17 Mr. Blagoje Simic.

18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, actually I have some evidences

19 to -- I mean, it's like evidentiary matters, housekeeping matters, that we

20 have to -- I spoke with my friends from Prosecution regarding the ID.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you have some documents to explain.

22 MR. PANTELIC: To explain, to tender.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. You can go ahead.

24 MR. PANTELIC: A couple of them.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

Page 20221

1 MR. PANTELIC: So if you --

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, this is the time.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, okay. Thank you. First of all, Your Honour,

4 the Defence was provided with the (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 MR. RE: Your Honours? I apologise, I'm hiding at the back here.

10 Can we move into private session for a moment, here?

11 JUDGE MUMBA: In regard to what Mr. Pantelic is saying?

12 MR. RE: Yes, yes.

13 MR. PANTELIC: No problem.

14 MR. RE: Thank you.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, we can move into private session.

16 [Private session]

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 (redacted)

21 (redacted)

22 (redacted)

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

Page 20222

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Pages 20222 to 20225 redacted private session.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 20226

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 [Open session]

9 JUDGE MUMBA: I think from way back since we moved from the first

10 document discussed by Mr. Pantelic.

11 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, you can continue, Mr. Pantelic.

13 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour. So I will briefly repeat,

14 so immediately after the Christmas break in our proceedings, intention of

15 the Defence was to call Professor Aleksic, handwritten expert in Defence

16 case, and then my learned friend, Mr. Weiner, indicated on page 13734 that

17 there is a possibility that the Prosecution will not cross-examine this

18 expert witness, and then he confirmed me during the break, and due to the

19 fact that we were in some hurry with the Defence witnesses, formally I

20 didn't tender this report into evidence, although he was filed through the

21 fax so formally I'd like now to have a number for this report. And Madam

22 Registrar informed me that copies are available for the Bench and for the

23 other members in proceedings.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have a number? It wasn't even marked

25 for identification, was it? No. There is no record.

Page 20227

1 MR. PANTELIC: No.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Can we have a number, please?

3 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit D184/1 and ter for the

4 B/C/S.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. And then, Your Honour, we discussed this

6 particular evidentiary matters with our learned friends from the

7 Prosecution, since on the list of Dr. Simic exhibits, there are a number

8 of ID documents --

9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, I think I can assist you

10 and Mr. Pantelic and we can speed this up because I can quickly indicate

11 what's not objected to and get this matter moving. Mr. Weiner also has

12 some exhibits. They are not in order so from that point of view it might

13 be a bit of a problem but other than that I can give you swift

14 information. D20/1, no problems as far as the Prosecution is concerned.

15 Do you want me to keep proceeding or shall we do them individually?

16 JUDGE MUMBA: No, I think you proceed because they all have their

17 own numbers.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. D48/1. There is no problem.

19 D70 -- the only other one of the Blagoje Simic exhibits that might

20 cause a slight problem is D15/1. The Prosecution doesn't strenuously

21 object but we can't see -- can't see its relevance. It's a document that

22 deals with -- dated the 28th of May, an order to the command of the 102nd

23 Odzak Brigade saying that 102 Brigade of the Odzak HVO has to coordinate

24 the tending of cattle.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: It's a matter of weight, isn't it?

Page 20228

1 MR. DI FAZIO: It's a matter of weight but the Prosecution cannot

2 conceivably see its relevance. Other than that we have nothing to say on

3 that particular document.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Fine.

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Mr. Weiner has some, as well, I believe.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner?

7 MR. WEINER: Yes, we have -- good morning, Your Honours. We have

8 no objections to D6/1, D7/1, D10/1, and D179/1.

9 We have questions as to the basic relevance of --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Before you go to that, to the ones where you have

11 something to say, can we just have a formal record that these exhibits --

12 these documents will retain the same numbers as exhibits? I just want to

13 make sure the Registry's records are correct. This is D6, D7, D10, D15,

14 D20, D48, and D179, all of them /1.

15 THE REGISTRAR: As long as the Registry receives the translations

16 of a couple of documents, these will retain the same number. Thank you.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Which ones don't have translations so that the

18 record is corrected?

19 THE REGISTRAR: At the moment I was able to find D15/1 and D20/1.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic? The English versions of D15 and D20,

21 both of them /1.

22 THE REGISTRAR: D70 which was mentioned /1 has already been

23 admitted into evidence.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour?

Page 20229

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Can I be corrected because on my document, I had

2 D7. Is it D70?

3 MR. WEINER: D7, not 70, sorry.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. It's already in evidence.

5 JUDGE WILLIAMS: I think maybe the confusion was Mr. Di Fazio

6 before you introduced the remaining documents, you were referring to, you

7 actually said D70 and then went on to say something else so I think that's

8 why D70 appeared on the transcript.

9 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, that's right. That may be right because one

10 of the -- one of Mr. Tadic's exhibits is a 70 exhibit, so that is probably

11 right. Thank you.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: [Microphone not activated] Yes, Mr. Pantelic, we have

13 the English versions or maybe you can --

14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, I have that, in fact, let me first address

15 Trial Chamber with regard to Exhibit D15/1 ID. Just to shortly have --

16 have short reply on the position of the Prosecution. Well, in fact, the

17 relevance, the Defence see the relevance with this particular document,

18 because the -- in stamp of this particular document, and it is absolutely

19 clear from the evidence D15/1 ter, that the HVO unit, 104, operated under

20 the control of Republic of Croatia operational group east -- eastern

21 Posavina, from -- with the seat in Slavonski Brod. Although it is not in

22 dispute in this case that the certain military operations on the large

23 scale from Croatian side conducted in Posavina region, still this is some

24 kind of, one of the corroborative evidences which support Defence case

25 with regard to the context of the conflict in Posavina region, and

Page 20230

1 particular position of Samac municipality within that region, and it is

2 also related with the creation of Croatian Community of Bosnian Posavina

3 and also it's related with the number of evidences that Croatian troops,

4 with in assistance with the HVO units, practically took control over the,

5 let's say, 95 per cent of Posavina region. And it is important for our

6 case because our position is that Samac municipality was included in this

7 plan and also that Samac was surrounded of enemy forces.

8 MR. DI FAZIO: I have no objection, Your Honours.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Just for that.

10 MR. DI FAZIO: No objections, Your Honours.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

12 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. And then with regard to --

13 JUDGE MUMBA: So are you going to hand in the English versions to

14 the Registry?

15 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour. In fact, in the exhibits we have

16 official English translation of that particular document, D15/1, but there

17 is no stamp, which can be -- if I may suggest, which can be very easily we

18 can overcome that problem because it's in Latinic script on the exhibit

19 D15/1 and it's just readable that it's republic of Croatia and operational

20 group so --

21 JUDGE MUMBA: That should be sufficient.

22 MR. PANTELIC: I believe that to be sufficient.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: And then the other one, D20, I think where the

24 Registry says they haven't got the English version yet.

25 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes. With regard -- yes. With regard to

Page 20231

1 Exhibit D20/1, I will take immediate steps to obtain official translation

2 and during next couple of days, I will tender it.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because there is no problem. It's already an

4 exhibit, only that we must have the English translation. Yes. Can you

5 move on to the other documents, if any?

6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, thank you.

7 Now I would like to give the basis for the admission of Defence

8 Exhibit D2/1 ID. First of all, I have sufficient number of copies of

9 translation of that document, because according to notes here in the list

10 of exhibits, we at that time, during the cross-examination of Dr. Donia,

11 we operated with an unofficial translation so I kindly ask Ms. Usher to

12 take these five copies of this particular document and to provide it to

13 the Bench. Thank you.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: What's the position of the OTP? Because the notes

15 show you wanted to check --

16 MR. WEINER: There was no authentication of the document at the

17 time, and also there is a serious issue to relevance here. But it's -- I

18 mean, it's not a strong objection. We don't see how it's relevant. I'll

19 even get beyond the position of authentication, I don't see how it's

20 relevant, once again, if he can explain how it's relevant, briefly.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: But you have no objection?

22 MR. WEINER: For whatever value it's worth.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: It's a matter of weight, isn't it? Yes.

24 MR. PANTELIC: I will explain, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: So we can have it admitted.

Page 20232

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: You can explain, Mr. Pantelic?

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, of course, Your Honour, it's quite important

4 document for us since it covers the activity -- just in few words,

5 activity and directions of the main headquarters of SDS [sic] party with

6 regard to the movement of population, of Muslim population, in area of

7 Bosnia-Herzegovina and also there is a -- some mentions regarding the --

8 you see at the first moment that -- the first paragraph, they are speaking

9 about this security situation in Bosnia and then that Karadzic and his

10 clique in Pale adopted Geneva documents and basically this is an

11 instruction of the SDA headquarters of movement of Muslim population, a

12 suggestion to leave, and this is a core of our case, so in general

13 context, we shall use this document, yes.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Let's move on.

15 JUDGE LINDHOLM: Just a small point, page 18, line 3, you

16 apparently intended to say SDA instead of SDS. The main headquarters of

17 -- it reads the main headquarters of SDS party. You mean SDA party?

18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, that was obviously a slip of the

19 tongue or maybe a mistake in the reporting. I'm grateful for your

20 intervention, of course it's SDA because document speaks for itself.

21 And also, Your Honour, allow me to -- with the same regard, and

22 regarding the previous document, D20/1, I've been just informed, my

23 colleague, Mr. Vukovic, that we actually have official translation, so I

24 kindly ask Ms. Usher to assist me. This is also the SDA document from

25 Sarajevo regarding their actions and there is some relevance to this

Page 20233

1 particular document.

2 Yes, Your Honour, and one last issue.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?

4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you. Your Honour, in terms of

5 procedural issues, I was at the conference with the commanding officer of

6 UNDU, Mr. McFadden, and I mean in official capacity to ask and to request

7 the report of detention unit with regard to my client, Dr. Simic, which is

8 the usual practice in our proceedings, and I was advised that according to

9 the practice, I have to raise that to -- before Trial Chamber and then

10 officially through the Registry, UNDU will file this particular report of

11 the -- of behaviour of Dr. Simic during the period of his detention within

12 the unit, within the UNDU. So just for the record, or -- I believe that

13 the Registry will take necessary steps for that.

14 [Trial Chamber confers]

15 JUDGE MUMBA: It is the wish of your client to have this formal

16 report placed on record?

17 MR. PANTELIC: In fact, yes. This is actually our common position

18 in order to have an overall view of the case, and also for mitigating

19 sent -- mitigating circumstances, yes.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Can I have the attention of the Registry assistant,

21 please?

22 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. The Trial Chamber will request the

24 Registry to ask the detention unit to formally file a report on

25 Dr. Blagoje Simic during the period of his detention, which will form part

Page 20234

1 of his Defence case.

2 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you, Your Honour. And just two minor issues.

3 I was just informed by the Registrar. It is the Exhibit D178/1, ID.

4 Actually that was the extract of the book which I tendered on 8th of

5 April, 2003. It's a part of the book of Colonel Stublincevic, at that

6 time he was a commander of 17th Corps operating in the area of Samac, and

7 actually that was the relevance for this document -- to this document, and

8 I just would like to find out whether Mr. Re has some objections to that.

9 So could we have full number for this particular evidence?

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The -- what is the position of the

11 Prosecution? This is D178/1.

12 [Prosecution counsel confer]

13 MR. PANTELIC: It speaks of the plan of JNA in this region and the

14 role of 17 Corps of JNA in operations, simply as that.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re?

16 MR. RE: The Prosecution says it appears to be an extract from a

17 book, from a person whose qualifications to give the account are unknown.

18 We simply ask the Defence to inform the Trial Chamber of how it is

19 relevant to the Defence of Dr. Simic. If Mr. Pantelic can do that, the

20 Prosecution won't object. But on the face of it, it's pretty marginal.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Gladly. The author of this book is Colonel

22 Stublincevic, he was a commander of 17 Corps of JNA, which was superior

23 unit of 17th Tactical Group, and it is corroborative evidence from Defence

24 point of view to the certain relevance of the document -- of reports by

25 JNA, and these are the exhibits P19, 20, 21, 22, 23, actually reporting of

Page 20235

1 the war -- military operations in that area. And it is -- the importance

2 for the Defence of Dr. Simic is that we have our position that, first,

3 Dr. Simic was any -- in any capacity participant of all this operations

4 and it's with direct relation with the -- with his alleged participation

5 in subcharge 1 of Count 1, forcible takeover. So all these military

6 issues are important for the Defence of Dr. Simic.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: There you are, Mr. Re.

8 MR. RE: The Prosecution's response is we won't object but it has

9 almost no weight. There is an account at page 526 of the English version

10 relating to the 16th and 17th of April, 1992, in the Svilaja, Brusnica,

11 Bosanski Samac, Odzak and Modrica, of clashes between the Croatian and

12 Serb forces. The Prosecution simply notes that this is evidence which is

13 in dispute in the case. The author of the book is not here and is not

14 subject to cross-examination as to the truth of clashes between the two

15 forces on the 16th and 17th of April. That's all. But with that caveat,

16 the Prosecution doesn't object to the document going in for what it's

17 worth.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well, then. Yes, any other documents,

19 Mr. Pantelic?

20 MR. PANTELIC: So we could have actually -- so we have a number

21 for this particular evidence? The ID will be removed? Yes?

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it will retain the same number as an exhibit.

23 MR. PANTELIC: And the other evidence is D181/1 ter ID. During

24 the examination of witness of Mr. Zaric, Colonel Nikolic, commander of

25 17th Tactical Group, during the cross-examination, I tendered -- well,

Page 20236

1 actually, I confronted the witness with this particular document, actually

2 the content of this document. It's very simple document. It's a number

3 of telephone, and nickname, number of telephone was actually the telephone

4 of Colonel Nikolic when he was deployed back in Serbia, and he confirmed

5 his nickname, Kriger, which is on this particular piece of paper. Well

6 obviously, reason -- I mean the basis for the relevance for the defence of

7 Dr. Simic is that this particular document, defence received from our

8 learned friends, from Prosecution side, and this particular document is a

9 part of personal belongings and personal archives so to say of Slobodan

10 Miljkovic, aka Lugar.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: So what is the relevance to your case?

12 MR. PANTELIC: The relevance is that even after the period of --

13 when Colonel Nikolic withdrew from Bosnia, since the number is of his

14 military unit in Serbia, the telephone number, the only conclusion that we

15 can make is that he still at that time, after 19th of May, 1992, he was in

16 contact with Lugar, which is the other part of relevance for defence of

17 Dr. Simic is that although we have enough evidences, that paramilitary

18 units actually volunteers, were under the control of Colonel Nikolic and

19 17th Tactical Group, and in addition, obviously certain level of relation

20 still were between Colonel Nikolic and Lugar, even after 19th of May.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: What's the position of the Prosecution on this one?

22 Mr. Re?

23 MR. RE: Could Mr. Pantelic -- my recollection of Mr. Nikolic's

24 evidence was he said he didn't remember if that was his telephone number.

25 Can Mr. Pantelic assist with that?

Page 20237

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Actually he confirmed that that was his

2 number from his military unit in Serbia.

3 MR. RE: There is no objection, Your Honour.

4 MR. PANTELIC: His garrison, actually.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Yes, what's the next document?

6 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, we have also I would like to hear from

7 Ms. Registrar what is the situation with regard to General Wilmot expert

8 report opinion which was tendered into the evidence or maybe we could -- I

9 mean officially we would like to have exhibit number. Thank you.

10 MR. RE: It wasn't tendered, Your Honours. That was the

11 situation. Mr. Pantelic provided it to the Prosecution. The Prosecution

12 responded and Your Honours admitted the -- said you would admit it, and

13 with the trial transcript from the Stakic case, which I would imagine is

14 incumbent upon the Defence to provide in some form to this Trial Chamber.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: We have already received it. It was done, yes.

16 MR. PANTELIC: It was done. This morning it was done.

17 MR. RE: Thank you.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we have the formal number, please?

19 THE REGISTRAR: The expert report will be treated as Exhibit

20 D182/1, tabs 1 to 119. The transcript of the testimony of the 20th of

21 March, 2003, will be D182A/1 and the transcript of testimony of the 21st

22 of March, 2003, will be D182B/1.

23 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you. And my last issue, Your Honour, I might

24 have one particular document, I am waiting actually officially to be

25 delivered to me by fax later today or maybe tomorrow, with regard to the

Page 20238

1 portion of the testimony of Mr. Zaric, and one actually not so important

2 event which occurred in Samac. So I kindly ask to have additional time

3 just to clarify that issue and I will address the Chamber with that

4 matter. I mean it's not so important. Maybe I will even not to

5 intervene.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: I mean it's up to you. You should decide what you

7 want to put on record. If you're saying it's not important, then you

8 don't need it.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honour. I really grateful to the

10 Registrar. Also with regard to D177/1, this is the order of engagement of

11 volunteers in the armed forces of SFRY and we discussed that matter with

12 Colonel Nikolic on 14th of April, 2003. It's actually the extract from

13 the Official Gazette. So I still have the ID here so I believe that there

14 is no objection from the Prosecution.

15 MR. RE: That is correct. No objection.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Very well. It will retain the same

17 number as an exhibit.

18 Any other documents?

19 MR. PANTELIC: No, Your Honour, not -- no Your Honour, at this

20 stage.

21 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, because I was wondering. We received --

23 although it's not a formal notice but we received a notice that D11/1,

24 D12/1, D13/1, I think we are waiting for translation or -- according to

25 your records.

Page 20239

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour, you are right, you are absolutely

2 right but these are the documents in English language so I don't think

3 that we need translation B/C/S.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: No, no. I just want to find out from you, from your

5 records, are they already in as exhibits? According to the Registry

6 record, no.

7 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. Then --

8 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?

10 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, thank you. In fact, these are the extracts

11 from constitution of Singapore. This is D11/1, then D12/1, from --

12 extract from Canada, and then D13/1, from -- extract from constitution of

13 Zambia. During the cross-examination of Dr. Donia, the basis to raise

14 that issue of the defence was to show that within comparative analysis of

15 various constitutional systems, that the principle of two-thirds majority

16 was required in well developed legal systems in the world, that -- for the

17 changes of borders of state and for other important issues, and the

18 position of the Defence is that this principle was obviously violated in

19 Bosnia-Herzegovina in mid-October, 1991. Of course this is a part for

20 Defence submission. But the relevance of this evidence is at that time,

21 during the cross-examination of Prosecutor expert, Dr. Donia, was to show

22 that in Bosnia, in mid-October, 1991, in more details, we already heard

23 from our experts, Professor Kecmanovic and Professor Nikolic, actually

24 the constitution of B and H was violated. The principle of two third

25 majority was violated and then Bosnia-Herzegovina entered into the process

Page 20240

1 of dissolution. Finally, Bosnia and Herzegovina was recognised in terms

2 of international law and according to the position of Defence --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: I don't want you to go into details of your

4 submissions.

5 MR. PANTELIC: Only on the basis of this accord, Your Honour. And

6 that's the basis that we would like to have this on overview of these

7 principle, constitutional law principles. Thank you.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: The Prosecution?

9 MR. DI FAZIO: We don't have any problem with it going into

10 evidence if the Trial Chamber is happy to increase the number of

11 exhibits, certainly.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: They are all public, legal documents. It's no

14 strenuous objection, though.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: That's D11, D12, D13, very well.

16 The other one we still have is D22. D30, D42, D49, D50, D51,

17 D128/1. What is your position, Mr. Pantelic?

18 MR. PANTELIC: Well, Your Honour -- Your Honour --

19 JUDGE MUMBA: No, on D30 there is already an oral ruling on that

20 so you don't have to bother with that.

21 MR. PANTELIC: That's what I was about to say. We already have

22 the Trial Chamber's ruling in this regard so ...

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me just get another one from the Registry

24 assistant so that I can give you the correct list.

25 MR. WEINER: Excuse me, Your Honour --

Page 20241

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Is it D22/1.

2 MR. WEINER: Excuse me on the D30, what was the oral ruling?

3 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

4 JUDGE MUMBA: So the other one is D42/1, also there was an oral

5 ruling against admission. That is D30/1 and D42/1. So we remaining with

6 D22/1. I think this was also ordered to remain ID.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, it was the diary of Sulejman Tihic if you

8 recall, and if fact, I think, from memory it was the Chamber itself that

9 said it should not be --

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Admitted into evidence, yes.

11 MR. DI FAZIO: -- proceeded with. So the Prosecution objects to

12 its admission into evidence.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. What about D49/1?

14 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour, with regard to D49/1 and D50/9 we

15 don't --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: One was awaiting translation, I think.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: If you check the records.

19 MR. PANTELIC: According to my recollection that was a statement

20 of Kemal Bobic and he gave it to Muslim secret police, AID agency. He

21 said that --

22 JUDGE MUMBA: What is the position?

23 MR. PANTELIC: The signature was forgery so there is no sense to

24 pursue this matter.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: That is D49?

Page 20242

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, D49/1.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So it will remain an ID. D50/1 and

3 D51/1, these are under seal but they were not admitted into evidence.

4 MR. PANTELIC: Yes. And also during the testimony of Witness Q,

5 we discussed that matter, but it is not -- it's not our intention to

6 follow that.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. So that's D50 and D51/1. According to

8 our record, we are remaining with D128/1.

9 MR. PANTELIC: Same story, Your Honour, because during the

10 examination of our witness, Mr. Ninkovic, Bozo Ninkovic, he was not able

11 to --

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Oh, yes, I'm reminded by the Registry that there was

13 an oral ruling that it can't be admitted into evidence.

14 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: So that appears to bring an end to all the

16 documents.

17 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: And then just to make it clear for the record, there

19 is no other document. The one you're talking about receiving later, as

20 you said, is not important.

21 MR. PANTELIC: Well, the issue is not important but I will clarify

22 this afternoon at latest the status and the possibility to obtain the

23 document regard to that issue so I kindly ask --

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Other than that document which you are waiting for,

25 all the documents are in.

Page 20243

1 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: So you formally close your case.

3 MR. PANTELIC: Yes.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Subject to that document which you're expecting?

5 MR. PANTELIC: That's correct, Your Honour.

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Mr. Di Fazio.

7 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please I'd just like to place on

8 the record that we haven't received copies of these documents, the final

9 translations that were put in and I would ask that Mr. Pantelic provide

10 Mr. Leese, our case manager, with copies of the various translations that

11 he's tendered this morning, that need not trouble us any further but I

12 want to place on the record that we haven't received them and I see

13 Mr. Pantelic nodding, and I assume that he will.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Give the Prosecution.

15 MR. DI FAZIO: Provide them. I just wanted that to be clear.

16 Thank you.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Mr. Pantelic, you have agreed with --

18 MR. PANTELIC: Yes, yes, Your Honour, I will do that during the

19 break.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. All right. We move to Mr. Miroslav

21 Tadic. There appears to be some documents.

22 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] When we checked our documents, we

23 established that three documents that were offered by the Defence of

24 Miroslav Tadic as exhibits had an ID marking. The first one was ID 73/3,

25 which is a power of attorney issued to Cvijetin Mijatovic by the Bobic

Page 20244

1 family. I don't think the Prosecution will have any objections to

2 admitting this document into evidence. The second document is D --

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Before we move to the next one, can we hear the

4 Prosecution?

5 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I can indicate that the Prosecution has no

6 objection to D73/3. And I can also indicate to you that D84/3 and D16/3

7 are not objected to, and if they are the documents that Mr. Krgovic was

8 going to deal with, we can just deal with them swiftly.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. So they will retain the same numbers as

10 exhibits. So those are dealt with. Any other documents, Mr. Krgovic?

11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] There is a document D74/3. If I may

12 explain, Your Honours, this document was tendered during the testimony of

13 Kemal Bobic, which is a one-page document that had already been admitted

14 during the testimony of Gordana Pavlovic, who gave a deposition in

15 Belgrade. So what we are talking about now is just the second page of the

16 document. I don't think that the Prosecution would object to the -- this

17 document.

18 MR. DI FAZIO: No.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. Yes? Any other?

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. As the Defence

21 of Blagoje Simic has already asked the Trial Chamber's assistance for

22 obtaining an official report on the conduct of Blagoje Simic in the

23 detention unit, the Defence of Miroslav Tadic would like to submit the

24 same kind of request and also to ask for a special report on the health of

25 Mr. Miroslav Tadic, which could also be reviewed by the Trial Chamber when

Page 20245

1 making their decision.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber will request the Registry to

3 formally ask for a formal report from the detention unit on the conduct of

4 Mr. Miroslav Tadic during detention. And the medical report? Yes, that

5 will be done formally by the Trial Chamber.

6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] The Defence of Miroslav Tadic is

7 ready to close its case. We have no other evidence to present.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me confer with the Registry assistant. It seems

9 we were given a record that D23/3, D165/3, and D186/3 are pending

10 admission as exhibits. What is your record?

11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I have an ID here with a question

12 mark relating to the document D23/3, which is a statement given by

13 Witness M on the 17th of June, 1996. It was a statement given to the OTP.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It's under seal actually.

15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes. It's under seal. I think that

16 we can withdraw this request.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well.

18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] For admitting this into evidence.

19 JUDGE MUMBA: All right.

20 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I think we have 165 here as well.

21 Let me just verify.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] It's a photograph of the street,

24 showing Mladost and coffee bar AS. We also have D2/3, which is a similar

25 photograph, and I don't think there should be any problems concerning the

Page 20246

1 admitting into evidence of this document.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: What's the position of the Prosecution?

3 MR. DI FAZIO: No objection, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. I take it they will retain the same

5 numbers as exhibits.

6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] D186/3 ter is a document concerning

7 which I think we have received an official translation, which was

8 lacking. This is a sketch.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: [Microphone not activated] Yes, it was. Yes, have

10 you got the translation?

11 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I think we have received the

12 translation, at least that's what the Registry told us.

13 JUDGE MUMBA: Can we just check with the Registry?

14 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Krgovic?

16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I apologise, Your Honour, but after

17 checking the sketch, I saw that I have an indication here that no

18 translation of this sketch is needed because it's clear as it is. That's

19 what my records indicate so I think we can admit this into evidence

20 without translation.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Yes. Any other item? We are informed by the

22 Registry there is a video footage D142/3?

23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That is the footage of Zasavica, and

24 I think that the footage also shows the damage to the house of Miroslav

25 Tadic. So I would like that exhibit to be admitted as well.

Page 20247

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Is there any position by the Prosecution?

2 MR. DI FAZIO: No objection, if Your Honours please.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well, thank you. So it will retain the same

4 number as an exhibit. Any other document, Mr. Krgovic?

5 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence of

6 Miroslav Tadic has no further documents, but the Defence of Simo Zaric

7 would like to tender in a document where the name of Miroslav Tadic is

8 mentioned as well. However, it will be an exhibit of the Defence of

9 Simo Zaric, although in part it pertains to Miroslav Tadic as well.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me just get clearance from the Registry whether

11 according to the Registry records there are no outstanding documents.

12 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

13 JUDGE MUMBA: There is only one item from the Registry's record.

14 This is D27/3. This is was map marked by Esad Dagovic. What does your

15 record show?

16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. This is a map

17 concerning which Esad Dagovic said during his testimony that it did not

18 reflect the reality. Later on, the map was admitted and therefore we will

19 withdraw our request concerning admitting D27/3 into evidence, because it

20 was admitted as D88/3.

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Through another witness. Yes, very well. So

22 that formally closes the case for Miroslav Tadic?

23 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Pending the submission of the report by the

25 detention unit. All right.

Page 20248

1 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: For Mr. Simo Zaric, we have, I think, two.

3 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour, you are right. Although I don't

4 know whether it's time for our usual break. It's now 10.30 but of course

5 if we have another schedule for today?

6 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We will take our break now.

7 --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

8 --- On resuming at 11.02 a.m.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, regarding Mr. Simo Zaric, Mr. Lazarevic?

10 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honours. Yes. According to

11 our record there are only two exhibits marked as ID in the case of -- in

12 case of Mr. Simo Zaric. First document is D1/4, and the other one is

13 D27/4. I believe that I discussed already this topic with my colleagues

14 from the Prosecution, and they are not objecting but of course it's up to

15 them to say, to state their position regarding these two documents.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, the Prosecution?

17 MR. RE: That's correct. There is no objection, Your Honour.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. So they will retain the same numbers as

19 exhibits.

20 Yes, Mr. Lazarevic?

21 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. Your Honours, I am very pleased to say that

22 we have finally received the statement of Mr. Nizam Ramusovic, properly

23 certificated according to the Trial Chamber's instruction. We received it

24 yesterday and first of all I would like to express my gratitude to

25 Mr. Weiner who really takes all the credit for this because he organised

Page 20249

1 all this and as well as to Ms. Anabela Atanasio who helped us.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, I'm sure the Trial Chamber also supports those

3 thanks to the Prosecution and to the Registry. Yes. We can receive it.

4 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. And if we can have the exhibit number for

5 this statement?

6 MR. WEINER: Excuse me, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Weiner.

8 MR. WEINER: This is the faxed copy. The actual written copies

9 are being sent by mail and we should have them within a week and I

10 would -- I'll hand them to the Registry and they could actually just

11 exchange the official copies for them.

12 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Thank you very much for that information.

13 Will it retain the same number? All right. Yes, we never had a number.

14 MR. LAZAREVIC: We never had a number, actually.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have it numbered, please?

16 THE REGISTRAR: This will be document D56/4 ter ID. Thank you.

17 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes. And there are three more documents --

18 JUDGE MUMBA: It's not ID. We removed that. It will just be

19 D56/4. Is there any reason why it --

20 THE REGISTRAR: I apologise. I didn't notice I was provided with

21 the English translation already. So it will be D56/4.

22 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you.

23 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

25 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honour, there are three more documents that I

Page 20250

1 would like to tender into evidence. These are supporting letters sent to

2 Mr. Zaric and to the Tribunal. They are not related 100 per cent to the

3 indictment and the case but they are corroborative with the position of

4 Mr. Zaric's Defence regarding the support that he has in Bosanski Samac

5 and around on everything he was doing here in the Tribunal, and regarding

6 his previous life. These three letters were already disclosed to the

7 Prosecution. So they are fully aware of it, of its content. And one of

8 these letters is the one that Mr. Krgovic mentioned. They are also

9 related to Mr. Tadic as well as Mr. Zaric.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: They are written by whom and the dates, please?

11 MR. LAZAREVIC: Your Honours, one is from June 2002, and it was

12 signed by some -- let me just check it -- 201 persons, most of them from

13 the region of Odzak and Bosanski Samac of all ethnicities, persons of all

14 ethnicities.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: That is one. And then the other one?

16 MR. LAZAREVIC: The other one is also from September 2002. It is

17 signed by 118 people from neighbouring villages to Bosanski Samac. And

18 the third one is actually not dated but it is a list of persons of

19 non-Serb nationality from the municipality of Bosanski Samac and who

20 signed, and by this, by these signatures, they testify their wish and

21 consent that Miroslav Tadic and Mr. Simo Zaric be allowed to defend

22 themselves from freedom. It was actually signed before the beginning of

23 these proceedings, while Mr. -- while Mr. Zaric and Mr. Tadic were still

24 in detention and it was in support of our submission for letting Mr. Zaric

25 and Tadic defend themselves from freedom, from Bosanski Samac.

Page 20251

1 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm wondering about their value because we already

2 have character evidence for Mr. Simo Zaric and even Mr. Tadic. And you

3 have yourself said that they are not related 100 per cent to the case. So

4 why should we receive them? These are just well-wishers, aren't they? We

5 don't want to be loaded with documents which don't help us in deciding the

6 issues before the Trial Chamber.

7 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honours. There is just documents

8 corroborative to statements made by character witnesses relating to

9 Mr. Zaric.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Let me hear from the Prosecution if they have

11 received them and they have scrutinised them.

12 MR. RE: The Prosecution has certainly received them.

13 Mr. Lazarevic just said they are corroborative to statements made by

14 character witnesses. Well, the one 12th of June, 2002, says: "We follow

15 the programme Tribunal and the trial attentively and cannot believe these

16 witnesses. Let us call them witnesses, in inverted commas, can sit in

17 such a great and famous house, a just of justice, and can lie and tell so

18 many untruths. We sincerely hope that the Prosecutor himself can see they

19 are lying and believe us. There is not one person here - this is the

20 people of Trnjak - who does not condemn false testimony." That's one of

21 them.

22 Another one that is signed by about 400 people says: "We are

23 hopeful that these commissioned and false testimonies and this hypocrisy

24 will not turn out to be an indirect means of certain forces to demonise

25 and destroy the character and dignity of a great man such as Mr. Zaric."

Page 20252

1 They include individuals who received wholehearted help from Mr. Zaric.

2 In the Prosecution's submission these go way beyond character.

3 They are making commentary on the testimony before the Trial Chamber.

4 It's one thing to say that 400 people in the village of Trnjak support

5 Mr. Zaric because they know him and like him but it's quite another to put

6 a document before the Court in which 400 people make comment or -- it's

7 not even character evidence by petition in my submission. It's just --

8 it's commentary of some sort. But if Mr. Lazarevic can make it relevant

9 or probative, the Prosecution of course won't object.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm sure Mr. Lazarevic has introduced them

11 sufficiently.

12 [Trial Chamber confers]

13 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber is of the view that they will not

14 be admitted into evidence. They are extraneous, they are not relevant to

15 the issues before the Trial Chamber and if any of those people wanted to

16 assist in any way, they should have come and given evidence in support of

17 the people they are supporting. So they will not be received into

18 evidence.

19 Any other matter?

20 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, Your Honour, only one more matter. The

21 Defence of Mr. Zaric would also like to move the Trial Chamber to instruct

22 the Registry to address the UN detention unit regarding the report on

23 Mr. Zaric's conduct during the period of his detention.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. The Trial Chamber will ask the Registry

25 to deal with that, ask for a formal report, as requested.

Page 20253

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: To my records, that would close the case of

2 Mr. Zaric.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. Yes. I wanted to go back to Mr. Tadic's

4 request for a medical report, Mr. Krgovic. I was looking at the records

5 and the Trial Chamber does not see any need for a medical report. Unless

6 there are complaints which your client has. Perhaps I may address

7 Mr. Tadic himself.

8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour, the Defence's

9 request, given that Miroslav Tadic has several chronic illnesses he

10 suffers from and which affect his health, and when the Trial Chamber is

11 deciding on the sentence for Miroslav Tadic, we wanted his health to be

12 taken into consideration. That was the Defence's intention. We have his

13 medical documents, they were submitted to the detention unit and contain

14 reference to all the treatment he was given, so we have all the documents

15 which is in the detention unit and we thought that a report on his health

16 might be of assistance to the Trial Chamber with regard to the purposes

17 that I mentioned just a minute ago.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well, then. The Trial Chamber will reconsider

19 and request the medical report. Are there any other matters? I wanted --

20 yes, this reminds me. I wanted to ask the Prosecution, regarding the two

21 witnesses who were not recalled, it was suggested by the Prosecution that

22 they would put in the parts of the statements which were recorded prior to

23 their being struck out. Now, that hasn't been done formally.

24 MR. DI FAZIO: Would you just give us a moment?

25 MR. RE: There are a number of documents the Prosecution wish to

Page 20254

1 tender today. It may have been more appropriate before the Defence closed

2 their case but the Prosecution certainly -- understands that the documents

3 aren't objected to and certainly wouldn't object if the defence wish to

4 reopen their case in response to any of the documents. The first two are

5 of course the two 92 -- Rule 92 bis statements, firstly of Stevan Nikolic

6 and secondly of Djordje Tubakovic. The Prosecutor formally tenders

7 paragraph 47 of D47/4 ID. That's the statement of Mr. Nikolic and we have

8 copies for the Trial Chamber, if Your Honours wish to mark it as a, say,

9 47A/4 or whatever.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. And the other one?

11 MR. RE: The other one is the statement of Mr. Djordje Tubakovic.

12 That's D184/3. The Prosecution formally tenders paragraphs 11 to 14 of

13 D184/3 ID. The Prosecution makes clear of course that it tenders the

14 paragraphs of both those statements only on the basis of a prior

15 inconsistent statement and not as to the acts or conducts of the accused

16 as mentioned in those statements.

17 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. I think we will need new numbers for

18 them so that we don't confuse them with the other statements. Can we have

19 some numbers? I will leave it to the Registry assistant to decide how

20 they will be numbered.

21 MR. RE: Firstly, for Mr. Nikolic's statement and secondly for

22 Mr. Tubakovic's statement.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: So they will be numbered as exhibits for the

24 Prosecution. Because that is the evidence which the Prosecution wishes to

25 have on record.

Page 20255

1 THE REGISTRAR: The statement for Mr. Stevan Nikolic will be

2 treated as Exhibit P184. The statement and 92 bis for Mr. Djordje

3 Tubakovic will be treated as Exhibit P185.

4 MR. RE: Could we just make it completely clear for the record,

5 the Prosecutor is only tendering paragraphs 11 to 14 of Mr. Tubakovic's

6 statement and paragraph 44 of Mr. Nikolic's statement.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That is understood. Yes, any other matters?

8 MR. RE: Mr. Zaric's book, Your Honours, I think it's P180 Your

9 Honours asked for a copy.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes for the Registry to have a formal copy.

11 MR. RE: I would like to place on the record the Prosecution's

12 gratitude to the Defence counsel for purchasing the book for us in

13 Belgrade and providing it to us.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Very well. And that is the formal copy in

15 case of any issues that may arise, that is the Registry copy which can be

16 referred to. Yes, any other matters?

17 MR. RE: The annexes to P178, which is the ICRC agreement of the

18 1st of October, 1992, the parties, Mr. Lukic and I addressed Your Honours

19 on that last month.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

21 MR. RE: These are annexes A 1, 2 and 3, and B, which the

22 Prosecution omitted to tender originally so I formally tender those now.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: They are annexes to a report already on record?

24 MR. RE: That's P178, that's the ICRC agreement between the SDS

25 and the president of Bosnia, et cetera.

Page 20256

1 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Any other matters?

2 MR. RE: Yes, the Prosecution also wishes to tender into evidence

3 an extract from the Criminal Code of the socialist Federal Republic of

4 Yugoslavia, namely the first page, that's the 1997 [sic] Criminal Code in

5 force in the socialist Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina until April 1992.

6 The Prosecution wishes to tender the first page showing what it is, and

7 extracts from chapter 15, Articles 114 through to 124, ending with armed

8 rebellion.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: Of the same code?

10 MR. RE: Yes. I understand there is no objection to that.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: I mean these are -- I thought they were public

12 documents. Any way for having a handy copy here, can we have them

13 numbered?

14 MR. RE: I've just handed up the original B/C/S and an English

15 translation.

16 JUDGE MUMBA: Did you say 1997 Criminal Code?

17 MR. RE: 1977.

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, it should be corrected. It's 1977.

19 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit P184 and ter for the B/C/S.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes?

21 MR. RE: Wish to tender into evidence two extracts from the

22 government gazettes of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina relating to the

23 promulgation or adoption of those particular chapters or that particular

24 chapter I've just tendered into evidence. Firstly, the Bosnia-Herzegovina

25 Official Gazette of the 11th of April, 1992, the extract is Articles 1, 2,

Page 20257

1 3 and 18, 18 being the operative provision. And secondly, Official

2 Gazette of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, year 1, number 10, of the

3 23rd of July, 1992, the extract is Articles 1, 13, 13 being the relevant

4 extract and 19 being the President's signature. I formally tender those

5 two documents into evidence.

6 THE REGISTRAR: If I may take this opportunity to correct for the

7 record, the last document I gave P185, the extract from the Criminal Code,

8 1977, it's not P184 but P186. P184 and P185 are the two paragraphs of the

9 two 92 statements, thank you.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the numbers?

11 THE REGISTRAR: The Official Gazette dated 11th of April, 1992,

12 will be Exhibit P187 and ter for the B/C/S. The Official Gazette dated

13 23rd of July, 1992, will be Exhibit P188 and ter for the B/C/S.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Re?

15 MR. RE: Wish to tender into evidence a statement declared

16 pursuant to Rule 92 bis of Richard Phillips, annexing six photographs

17 of -- or five photographs of armoured personnel -- I'm sorry, APCs,

18 armoured personnel carriers and a tank. The reason for this is there has

19 been a significant amount of evidence in the case as to tanks, and

20 armoured personnel carriers or BOVs. We have some photographs which we've

21 taken from Jane's armoured or Jane's manual and Mr. Phillips, a military

22 analyst has prepared a statement with a short description of each and I

23 understand there is no objection to that.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Defence have no objection to that? I see

25 none.

Page 20258

1 MR. LAZAREVIC: No objections on behalf of the Defence.

2 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. They have the translation in B/C/S?

3 MR. RE: They should have.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. We have just received them. Yes, can we have

5 the number, please?

6 THE REGISTRAR: This will be Exhibit P189 and ter for the B/C/S.

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Any other matters.

8 MR. RE: A statement declared pursuant to Rule 92 bis, of Mr. Yves

9 Roy spelt R-o-y, an OTP investigator, relating to the interview of Witness

10 Mr. Jusuf Arnautovic and the Office of the Prosecutor taking a statement

11 from him on the 26th of November, 1998, arising from Mr. Arnautovic's

12 cross-examination and going only to the taking -- the manner of taking of

13 the statement and his declaring it to be true. And also I understand

14 there is no objection to the tender of this statement.

15 JUDGE MUMBA: If my memory serves me -- no objection? All

16 right. Is this the statement from which an extract was actually read and

17 is on record? Because I checked the evidence of this witness. Maybe to

18 be brief, there was only one statement.

19 MR. RE: Yes.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: All right. Then it seems that that is the same one

21 whose extract was placed on record when was being cross-examined.

22 MR. RE: Yes.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we have the number, please?

24 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit P190 and ter for the B/C/S.

25 JUDGE MUMBA: Any other matters, Mr. Re?

Page 20259

1 MR. RE: Mr. Weiner has one exhibit he wishes to deal with and

2 there are several other -- one clarification matter I would ask the Trial

3 Chamber when he's finished.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 MR. WEINER: We have a few matters to actually deal with. One is

6 P172, with the assistance of the Registrar could we determine if that is

7 still an ID document? Then at this point we would like to tender the

8 English translation of P172, which is the decision to dismiss

9 Marko Kuresevic and it's a decision of the Crisis Staff signed by the

10 defendant Blagoje Simic.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. It will retain the same number.

12 MR. WEINER: Thank you. The next document is P128. It's had a

13 very odd history. P128 was first shown to a witness on June 14th, 2002,

14 and it was not admitted. Later, it was used to cross-examine various

15 witnesses. It was used to cross-examine the defendant Blagoje Simic on

16 the 21st of November. He recognised it. He knew what the document was

17 about. The Prosecution then tendered the document. However, it was not

18 admitted because it was indicated that there was a similar document that

19 was already in evidence. The Chamber asked me to look into the

20 situation. That's at pages 12602 to 604. Now, the document continued to

21 be used after that. Looking into the situation we found that D31/2 was

22 introduced on the February 12th, 2002. D31/2 is the exact same ter

23 document. The English translation on 31/2 is a draft translation. P128

24 in English is the official translation. So what we would like to do is

25 offer the P128 into evidence so we will have the official English

Page 20260

1 translation of that same document, which is D31/2. It was used to impeach

2 or to question several witnesses in this case.

3 JUDGE MUMBA: Very well. So D31/2 ter and P128.

4 MR. WEINER: Ter, are the same document.

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

6 MR. WEINER: It's just the English translations are different.

7 One is draft, one is official.

8 JUDGE MUMBA: So the English translation is P128.

9 MR. WEINER: Yes.

10 JUDGE MUMBA: For both documents. Very well. Any other matters?

11 MR. WEINER: Thank you. Mr. Di Fazio, I believe, has a matter or

12 two.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Just one matter, if Your Honours please. You

14 recall during the evidence of Dr. Radovanovic, I put to her two maps that

15 I had obtained from the web site of the IMG group. The Defence, in fact

16 Mr. Pantelic, pointed out that their researchers had indicated that it was

17 the world's largest, most diverse and only truly global company dedicated

18 to the marketing and management of sport, leisure and life-style goods.

19 The front page of the web site indicates that the international management

20 group was established in 1993 as a specialised intergovernmental agency in

21 accordance with UN resolution 179 dated November 21, 1947. Its operations

22 relate and I quote here, "to the accountability of the IMG steering

23 committee formed of the members representing the European Commission,

24 something called ECO, Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,

25 Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and the

Page 20261

1 United Kingdom. Additional support members are OHR, the Office of the

2 High Representative of Bosnia, and UNHCR, United Nations High Commissioner

3 for Refugees." And the -- and it continues. It's essentially involved in

4 reconstruction efforts in Bosnia. And that's where the maps were obtained

5 from. I don't -- I provided copies of this web site to -- the front page

6 of the web site to Defence counsel.

7 If Your Honours please, the purpose of putting those two maps to

8 Dr. Radovanovic was simply to place them in front of her and ask her if it

9 altered her conclusions, not to prove that the four municipalities that

10 emerged out of the basic territory of the former two municipalities were

11 polarised. In order to do that we rely on the evidence of Dr. Tabeau and

12 her reports. So that was the only purpose of putting those two maps to

13 Dr. Radovanovic, to see, in effect, if it altered her opinion.

14 They remain as exhibits P184 ID and P184A ID, and the Prosecution

15 seeks --

16 JUDGE MUMBA: My record shows P183. Can we hear from the Registry

17 assistant?

18 THE REGISTRAR: The two colourful maps are P183 ID.

19 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry, there must be a mistake in my transcript. I

20 accept what the Registry says. I'm referring to the two colourful maps.

21 If it's P183 and P183A ID then they are the ones I'm referring to and I'm

22 seeking the tender into evidence of those two maps.

23 JUDGE MUMBA: What's the position of the Defence with the

24 explanation that the Prosecution has given now?

25 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, the Defence objects to

Page 20262

1 these two maps being admitted into evidence because these maps do not

2 explain the purpose for which the maps were drafted and based on what

3 documentation it was done. That was the essence of our objection during

4 the testimony of Svetlana Radovanovic so basically there is no database to

5 establish how these maps were drafted.

6 Based on the submission of the Prosecution, it doesn't follow that

7 this organisation is engaged in any demographic research. It seems more

8 that they are dealing with urban issues, energy, transport,

9 telecommunications management and so on which is quite unrelated to

10 demographic research and assessment.

11 [Trial Chamber confers]

12 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm informed that Mr. Di Fazio wanted to reply.

13 MR. DI FAZIO: Just to say this if Your Honours please,

14 Mr. Krgovic pointed out precisely what I was pointing out to you. I'm not

15 using them to prove the polarisation in the former municipalities. I will

16 rely on the evidence of Dr. Tabeau and her report to do that. It was put

17 to her to see if she would alter her opinion in the light of what they

18 claim. That's all. So there is no need to analyse the source and the

19 origins and how the maps were produced.

20 [Trial Chamber confers]

21 JUDGE MUMBA: The Trial Chamber will have them admitted into

22 evidence. It is a matter of how much weight to be attached to them. So

23 they will retain the same numbers. Any other matters?

24 MR. RE: Could we move back into private session for one moment to

25 deal with the matter which Mr. Pantelic raised earlier?

Page 20263

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Can we move into private session?

2 [Private session]

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 (redacted)

11 (redacted)

12 (redacted)

13 (redacted)

14 (redacted)

15 (redacted)

16 (redacted)

17 (redacted)

18 (redacted)

19 (redacted)

20 [Open session]

21 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, can we have the numbers formally, please? Yes,

22 we are in open session now. We are in open session. Yeah.

23 THE REGISTRAR: It will be Exhibit D183A/1, B and C, thank you.

24 JUDGE MUMBA: Thank you. This will follow the order in which they

25 were numbered by Mr. Pantelic. Any other matters?

Page 20264

1 MR. RE: Yes. There is two other matters. The first one is the

2 Prosecution just wishes to seek some brief clarification in relation to

3 the Trial Chamber's ruling of the acceptance into evidence of P164, that

4 is the factual basis for the plea of guilty in the case of Biljana

5 Plavsic. The Prosecution -- the brief history is the Prosecution was

6 examined, cross-examining, a witness, Mr. Makso Simeunovic on the 3rd of

7 March, 2003, and asked that the plea agreement or the factual basis be

8 marked for identification and the Trial Chamber asked whether we wished to

9 have it admitted into evidence and it was admitted into evidence. On the

10 8th of April, the Defence led by Mr. Pantelic for Dr. Simic asked for

11 access to certain documents relating to or about -- behind the factual

12 basis for the plea of guilty and two days later, the Trial Chamber ruled

13 that was on the 10th of April, saying that -- handing -- just saying, hand

14 down a ruling regarding the oral motion by the Defence on the use of the

15 guilty plea by Mrs. Plavsic. "The Trial Chamber is of the view that it

16 does not require the documents sought by the Defence in their oral motion

17 for them to challenge any evidence adduced by the Prosecution when using

18 the guilty plea by Mrs. Plavsic. The Defence can examine their witnesses

19 just as they do, can re-examine their witnesses just as they do with every

20 other piece of evidence or exhibit produced by the Prosecution. The

21 production of documents enumerated by the Defence in this regard is

22 unnecessary as it is not our role to inquire into or evaluate the merits

23 of the plea and the sentencing judgement." That's the extract of Your

24 Honour's oral ruling in relation to the use of the Plavsic factual basis

25 for the plea of guilty.

Page 20265

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

2 MR. RE: The Prosecution just wishes to clarify so it's completely

3 clear for the Defence and the Trial Chamber when we were cross-examining

4 witnesses and using that document, we were assuming that the Trial Chamber

5 had admitted it under the basis of Rule 94(B) which is taking judicial

6 notice of a document used in another case and the Prosecution was using

7 the document only for the purposes of confronting witnesses in

8 cross-examination to say, to put forward a version of events given by the

9 leader of the SDS and the president of the -- Presidency of the Republika

10 Srpska at the relevant time. And asking, confronting the witnesses with

11 it and asking them whether or not they adopted -- would adopt that version

12 or would change their own evidence in the light of that evidence. The

13 Prosecution makes clear that it was only intending to make a limited use

14 of that document from another case and that being only confrontation of

15 witnesses in another case -- confrontation of witnesses in this case in

16 relation to a document produced in another case, the same use, the

17 Prosecution could make of any document or any version by or hearsay

18 version of anyone outside this case and asking them whether or not in the

19 light of that they agreed with it or were prepared to change their

20 evidence. So we are putting on the record just to make it abundantly

21 clear that that was the use the Prosecution was making. We just ask

22 clarification from the Trial Chamber, is the Prosecution's assumption

23 correct that, as it wasn't explicitly set out in the Trial Chamber's

24 ruling, the Trial Chamber was admitting it only on the basis of Rule

25 94(B) and for that limited use because the Prosecution certainly won't be

Page 20266

1 submitting anything else in its final Trial Chamber brief as to the use

2 which it says the Trial Chamber can make of that factual basis for the

3 plea of guilty.

4 [Trial Chamber confers]

5 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. That is the basis upon which the guilty plea

6 was admitted and the Trial Chamber does not wish to say anything, that has

7 been clarified, I think, sufficiently.

8 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honours. The final matter which I wish

9 to raise is -- I'm sorry, Mr. Pantelic?

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, Mr. Pantelic?

11 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise. Please, Your Honour, just for the

12 record, Defence of Dr. Simic would like to submit respectfully submit the

13 following: If this particular document, factual basis of plea agreement,

14 is going to be considered as a document with -- on the basis of judicial

15 notice from the other proceedings, then I think it would be appropriate to

16 remove this particular exhibit from the list of exhibits. I mean, as a

17 standard of -- in the rules of procedure and admission of evidences, and

18 then to have a -- on the record, what was said, I don't object. These are

19 the submissions which are absolutely based. Then to have -- because it's

20 a public document, it's within the jurisdiction and the jurisprudence of

21 this Tribunal, so in that case, I think this document cannot be officially

22 on the list of exhibits, because my understanding was that he was a

23 recognised through the procedure of judicial notice as a document from the

24 other proceedings. So it is in contravention of the principle of exhibits

25 by itself. Thank you.

Page 20267

1 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Very well, Mr. Pantelic. Any other matters?

2 MR. RE: Your Honour doesn't wish me to respond to Mr. Pantelic's

3 submission in relation to it remaining as an exhibit?

4 JUDGE MUMBA: I'm wondering whether there is anything else to say,

5 unless you have something extra apart from what you already submitted.

6 MR. RE: No. I --

7 JUDGE MUMBA: Go ahead.

8 MR. RE: It's just Mr. Pantelic raised something else. He said it

9 should be removed and if Your Honours are considering removing it I would

10 like to be heard but if Your Honours aren't I won't say anything.

11 JUDGE MUMBA: No we are not considering removing it.

12 MR. RE: May it please the Court, may it please Your Honours. The

13 final matter which I wish to raise is in relation to the final trial brief

14 and the format of it or the content of it. The Trial Chamber has heard a

15 lot of evidence which has either been in closed session or in private

16 session and the reasons for it being heard in private or closed session is

17 obviously so as not to reveal the identity of a witness through

18 information which is given by the -- by a witness or other people in court

19 which relates to them. However, there is a lot of information given in

20 private session which, if carefully or if properly used, will not reveal

21 the identity of any -- of any protected witness or the identity of anyone

22 whose identity should not be disclosed. The Prosecution will of course

23 file a public -- sorry, a confidential version of its final trial brief

24 which of course will refer in full to the witnesses who gave evidence in

25 closed session and any evidence which has to remain out of the public

Page 20268

1 domain at the moment and of course will then will file a publicly redacted

2 version. The Prosecution seeks guidance in this manner. What we would

3 like to do, if possible, is to refer to some evidence in closed session in

4 the publicly redacted version in such a way as to -- as it could not

5 identify the -- could not identify the protected witness or someone whose

6 identity has been protected by the Trial Chamber.

7 Obviously we would do it very, very carefully but balancing of

8 course the public interest in having as much information on the public

9 record as possible with the protection of the -- of the witnesses, what

10 we would like to do if possible is to refer to some evidence which is

11 given in closed session but evidence which doesn't identify someone

12 because often there is a lot of stuff which just won't identify anyone but

13 which is evidence which would like to refer to. That's the first part of

14 that.

15 The second part is the brief is due on the 19th of June and the

16 Prosecution will certainly have its confidential brief filed on that

17 date. However, it will take us several days to properly redact everything

18 from it because we can't file a public version because we can't do two at

19 the same time. We can only file a publicly redacted version after we have

20 finished and signed off on the confidential version because we have to

21 then go through it extremely carefully and take everything out. While we

22 are drafting it, we've blocked everything we think is in closed session

23 or highlighted it so that we can take it out but we can't really have two

24 running versions at the same time because versions get lost and it becomes

25 a nightmare to try and control two versions when you're altering them as

Page 20269

1 you go. What we had like to ask the Trial Chamber in relation to that is

2 can we file the publicly redacted version say on the Monday after we filed

3 the confidential version on the Thursday which would give us time to make

4 sure that there was nothing in the public version that should not be

5 there. Of course there would no prejudice to the other side who will have

6 the confidential version on the Thursday and of course to the Trial

7 Chamber which would have the full version before the weekend. So those

8 are the two matters I raise or seek guidance in relation to.

9 [Trial Chamber confers]

10 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. The Trial Chamber agrees with that, as long as

11 the confidential one, which is fully dealing with the whole case, is filed

12 on the due date, on the 19th.

13 MR. RE: Thank you, Your Honour.

14 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes. Anything else from the Defence?

15 MR. RE: Is Your Honour saying that you also agree with the first

16 proposal which is to put in the publicly redacted version matters from

17 private session which couldn't identify a witness?

18 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes, generally that is the practice.

19 MR. RE: Thank you.

20 JUDGE MUMBA: Because the protection really is the identification

21 of the witness. So if that is done carefully by the Prosecution, there

22 should not be any problem.

23 Yes, Mr. Lazarevic?

24 MR. LAZAREVIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. I was just advised

25 by the Registry that actually there is one more document on our list that

Page 20270

1 still has an ID mark. It's document D50/4 ter ID. It has ID mark because

2 it wasn't translated into English, and I'm talking about the sketch drawn

3 by Witness Dusan Gavric of the hierarchy in Odzak.

4 JUDGE MUMBA: Yes.

5 MR. LAZAREVIC: If I remember correctly, and I believe that this

6 is how it happened, after witness has drafted this sketch, he read out the

7 content of this sketch in the transcript. So I don't think that we

8 actually need any other translation more than that.

9 JUDGE MUMBA: No. So it can be put in as an exhibit. And it will

10 carry the same number, which will be D50/4.

11 Yes, so both parties will file the written briefs by 19th June and

12 the closing arguments will be heard during the week beginning 30th June up

13 to 4th July. The parties have already been informed the Prosecution will

14 have up to five hours closing arguments and then up to three hours for

15 each Defence and then one hour for each party to reply.

16 There being no other business, we will adjourn our proceedings

17 until then.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at

19 12.06 p.m., to be reconvened on Monday,

20 the 30th day of June, 2003, at 9.00 a.m.

21

22

23

24

25