1 Thursday, 30 January 2003

2 [Open session]

3 [The accused entered court]

4 --- Upon commencing at 2.20 p.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon to everybody. Please be seated.

6 My apologies for the late arrivals. I hope they can show good

7 cause for this.

8 It was only yesterday in the evening that the United Nations

9 headquarters in New York announced that opposed to that what we find in

10 writing in all our calendars, Eid al Adha, the Muslim festival of

11 sacrifice, will not be the 12th of February but the 11th of February.

12 This means that no doubt 11th of February, we'll have to follow the rules,

13 will be a day where we can't have any hearings.

14 On the other hand, it was discussed with the parties and there

15 were made a lot of arrangements for the 12th through 14th of February, and

16 it remains with this schedule.

17 In order to have a slight -- at least a slight balance, we will

18 sit on Monday, the 10th of February, from 9.00 to 12.00 and from 1.30 to

19 4.30.

20 February the 7th was a long story about the possibilities at the

21 end of the day in order to have at least half a day, complete a half day.

22 The hearing will take place from quarter past 2.00 until 7.00 on

23 February -- 7th of February.

24 I'm sorry for these last-minute changes. I know this should have

25 been arranged in a better way, but please be assured that even when we

1 discussed problems related to this week in the Bureau yesterday, nobody

2 knew about this change.

3 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. Good afternoon. We do have a

4 comment. We'd like to address the scheduling problem. And since this is

5 the first time that it arises in connection with the date of February

6 11th, the Defence would like to make an application at a time when it's

7 convenient for the Court in connection with February 10th and the

8 unavailability of witnesses to proceed on that date as well as Defence

9 counsel. I'm not sure if this is the right time.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I just interrupt you. I wanted to announce

11 this out of the period of time when we have the hearing. But when we

12 enter into details, please let us first call the case and the appearances

13 and then go into details. I wanted to make this announcement previously.

14 Okay. Please.

15 THE REGISTRAR: Good afternoon. This is case number IT-97-24-T,

16 the Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the appearances for the Prosecution.,

18 please.

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good afternoon, Your Honours. Nicholas Koumjian,

20 Ann Sutherland, and Ruth Karper.

21 MR. LUKIC: Good afternoon, Your Honours. For the Defence, Branko

22 Lukic, John Ostojic, and Danilo Cirkovic.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. Then, please, you may continue with

24 your comments related to the schedule.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour. In the past practice, I

1 think the Honourable Court has suggested that if there are any problems,

2 we should immediately advise the Court of that or note our objection

3 relating to any scheduling that proceeds. In that vein, we would like to

4 discuss that issue and the Defence would like the opportunity in detail

5 unless the Court prefers to present it in writing, our schedule for the

6 remaining witnesses and what the Defence envisions when those witnesses

7 will be called.

8 The Defence also, in light of the deadline of March 3rd set by the

9 Court last week relating to our expert reports and 92 bis statements,

10 among other things, we believe that it would be beneficial and we would

11 ask respectfully the Court to have that Monday off as well so that we

12 could finalise those documents of both Mr. Lukic and the rest of the

13 Defence team who will be travelling to Prijedor and the surrounding area

14 to complete the 92 bis witnesses. I will be meeting with our experts in

15 the United States in order to complete their review of documents and

16 analysis so that we could timely submit that to the Court. So we would

17 apply orally, unless the Court requires it to be in writing, that we also

18 have Monday, the 10th of February off and not work that day. It would

19 give the Defence an extra weekend to travel to distances that are somewhat

20 far so that we can complete and efficiently conclude --

21 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel slow down, please.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: So that we can complete efficiently the remainder of

23 the Defence case. We've envisioned that there is ample time and there

24 will not be a request to go beyond the prior scheduled deadline that the

25 Court set for the Defence case.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I have heard your message. May I hear

2 submissions by the OTP on this issue.

3 My understanding is that there are no objections related to

4 February the 7th, sitting in the afternoon.

5 MR. OSTOJIC: There's no formal objection. Just so that the Court

6 is aware, we only have three witnesses that are available to come during

7 that week. The following week, assuming the Court grants our request for

8 the 10th, the following week, the 17th, we envision, obviously with leave

9 of Court, to proceed with the videolink testimony of five witnesses, and

10 we've set forth in an application that will be submitted to the Court

11 tomorrow morning specifically the reasons why these five individuals are

12 unable to come in person but will be seeking leave to present them via

13 videolink. So Friday, the 7th is okay with the Defence so long as the

14 Court does recognise the fact that we only have three witnesses scheduled

15 for that week. We think it will -- it will be completed during that week.

16 We just don't know how soon or if it will take a shorter period than the

17 complete week.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's no doubt -- I gave you immediately the

19 floor. But I think we can't proceed in this way. We already told you the

20 number of remaining witnesses and the remaining days. This be from now on

21 only 30 days. And, therefore, we can't afford any additional day off, and

22 we do what we can do to give the Defence the possibility to present their

23 case, and we are fighting for not only days but for hours, and therefore,

24 to be honest, I can't understand why the intention is to present only

25 three witnesses for next week, knowing that we have the entire day at our

1 disposal for the next week. And as I said previously, at the end of the

2 day, well, say, the 21st of February, we will conclude. And it's a risk

3 for the Defence, but we do what we can to give you the opportunity. And,

4 therefore, please try to call an additional witness for next week. I'm

5 quite sure that it will be possible based on the short statements only to

6 hear more than three witnesses when we sit the entire day throughout the

7 week save for Friday.

8 Regards -- as regards the 10th and 11th, it was scheduled, and we

9 were not aware and also the Defence couldn't be aware that there would be

10 this change, and therefore no doubt it was envisaged also from the side of

11 the Defence to hear witnesses the 10th and the 11th in order to allow at

12 least one witness to be heard that day. Deliberately we tried and

13 successfully we did so to have the 10th of February as one day.

14 What's now with this video conferences. If you can manage it, I

15 would be absolutely surprised because it was only the beginning of this

16 week that I told the parties that the preparation of such a videolink

17 would necessarily take three to four weeks. And based on this, it seems

18 to be impossible -- Madam Registrar may correct me if I'm wrong -- to

19 start a videolink in the week starting with the 17th of February. So --

20 THE REGISTRAR: There's an absolute minimum of two weeks in order

21 to prepare a videolink.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So this would be impossible to proceed this way.

23 MR. OSTOJIC: The Defence envisioned, Your Honour, to answer a

24 couple of your questions, that by filing an application today or tomorrow

25 that it would give the adequate 14-day notice for video depositions or

1 video testimony to proceed on the 17th of February or at any time

2 thereafter. If it's necessary, we can and would, obviously with the

3 Court's permission, switch some witnesses so that the video depositions

4 proceed on the following week. However, just so that the Court can fully

5 understand the Defence's position on this, we believe that spending some

6 time in the field with witnesses that have become reluctant to testify on

7 behalf of the Defence, for unexplained reasons, that they would possibly

8 come back and testify, would be ready and willing to testify when they

9 have personal contact, as opposed to telephone contact, with the Defence

10 attorneys.

11 Secondly, we believe that in looking at the schedule, although the

12 Court identified a certain 34 number of witnesses remaining, the Defence

13 is prepared sometime after today's hearing to present to the Court a

14 revised list which reduces those number of witnesses. The Defence will in

15 lieu of that present 92 bis statements that we are confident will not

16 require any cross-examination but certainly will defer to the OTP and

17 their opinion of that. We'd also need the time to prepare and to schedule

18 for those 92 bis witnesses and would also, since the registrar will be

19 present during the videolink presentation, in the area would also have

20 that certification complete during the week of the 17th, which would meet

21 the Court's deadline of March 3rd.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: As said before, two weeks is the absolute

23 minimum. And when we discussed it previously or deliberately I said

24 "three to four weeks" because this is more or less the practice. And we

25 had already one example.

1 And then in addition, we need some time for the decision whether

2 to accept video witness or 92 bis statements because it might be that the

3 Chamber may be based on statements by the Prosecution or aproprio motu it

4 comes to the condition that the witness might be of such importance that

5 the only possibility to hear this witness as live witness.

6 We always apply the rule of the best possible evidence, and this

7 means that in some cases a mere videolink is not enough. Maybe also the

8 Defence is aware of the shortcomings and the problems we faced when having

9 heard the video testimony of a Prosecution witness. So, therefore, please

10 be aware that it's not automatic procedure and first we have to hear the

11 Prosecution; and second, we have to decide ourselves. So from the point

12 of view of today, it's impossible to start with links, with a video

13 hearing the 17th of February. But let us hear also the other side. Maybe

14 there are additional arguments or mitigating arguments from the side of

15 the Prosecution.

16 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, we don't have an objection to the

17 Monday that counsel is asking about, with the proviso that the

18 representation of the Defence, that they will finish the case on time. I

19 do know that sometimes in preparation, having time to prepare, we can

20 stream line a case and it can go quicker. We in our Prosecution case did

21 not call 16 witnesses that we originally envisioned for one reason or

22 another.

23 As to the 92 bis, I agree completely with Your Honour, and would

24 just -- although we -- there may be many witnesses, we do not need to

25 cross-examine, the minimum requirement for a witness to be eligible is

1 that their testimony will not go to the acts and conduct of the accused.

2 And at least many of the 65 ter summaries that we have would indicate that

3 the witness's testimony would go to the acts and conduct of the accused.

4 But we're certainly willing to consider it. We're willing to cooperate

5 with the Defence. I certainly understand the need of counsel to speak to

6 the witnesses. And we want to be cooperative and flexible with the

7 understanding that they have indicated they will complete the case within

8 the time limit that the Court specified.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think nothing has to be added related to video

10 conferences because also here is a question that has to be decided on the

11 basis of what will be expected from these witnesses, whether or not we

12 need the direct contact. I don't want to make reference to the

13 jurisprudence on domestic levels where it's always said that there is such

14 a hierarchy that the best possible and the best available witness is

15 always a witness, when it's -- in case it's an important witness, to be

16 heard in court and not outside and not via video. We are all aware of the

17 shortcomings of a mere video testimony. And if need may be, as already

18 indicated beforehand, in such cases an alternative would be to take

19 depositions, maybe even depositions by the Judges in, be it, Prijedor,

20 Banja Luka, or wherever you tell us the witnesses are residing in the

21 moment.

22 So in conclusion, the 7th, no doubt there will be a hearing in the

23 afternoon as well and we invite the Defence to call another witness for

24 Friday, the 7th.

25 What about the 10th of February? That has to be discussed by the

1 Judges after deliberations during one of the next breaks, and we will

2 announce the outcome later this day.

3 Anything else to be added in the moment before we start with the

4 witness?

5 MR. KOUMJIAN: Just to inform the Court that we did distribute to

6 the registrar and Defence today colour copies of S394 or a coloured copy

7 for the Court and submitted a revised translation with the correction of

8 the date of S77. I believe, if I remember right, that was -- it's dated

9 1993, and Your Honours and the Defence pointed out that the correct date

10 on the original was 1992.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: I do have a comment --

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: And also S377, the translation is now available and

13 was distributed.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

15 MR. OSTOJIC: I do object, Your Honour, to the submission of

16 documents that the -- that the OTP claims have been revised. We saw that

17 in fact a document that was translated based upon a video transcript of a

18 witness testifying, that the translator or the interpreters identified the

19 individual as the president. Subsequent to that, we were given a document

20 which apparently made some modifications to it. It's my understanding

21 once evidence is submitted and accepted by the Court, that we cannot just

22 unilaterally or collectively, whether it be the OTP or the Defence, start

23 substituting documents. If the position is of the Defence that the OTP at

24 one time thought Mico Kovacevic was the president and led a certain

25 meeting and that their very own documents from the video transcripts

1 suggest that, and in fact more than suggests that, affirmatively states

2 that, they cannot once we make that known to the Court start replacing

3 documents in evidence. What I would propose respectfully is if there are

4 these, what they would call, typographical errors, that they make an

5 application in writing and keep the original document as admitted, as

6 submitted by them, and then also if permitted by the Court admit the

7 document that they claim has now been corrected. Because the Defence view

8 is that the interpretation of many of the documents are not correct and

9 that it is not a question of a mere typographical error such as the year

10 that was pointed out but the sum and substance of many of these documents,

11 we state and will establish for the Court in due time, have been in fact

12 somewhat distorted. So I would object strongly to the OTP merely handing

13 documents to the registry and simply telling us that they've corrected

14 these typos or alleged typos. These are substantive errors and these are

15 substantive positions that the OTP took in other cases, and we'd like to

16 show the Court the position that they have taken inconsistent with what

17 their position in our view is in this case. And we think that that's

18 significant and that they should not be permitted to do that and that a

19 record should be maintained specifically when in fact they attempt to

20 replace or substitute documents already in evidence.

21 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I don't believe the Defence would like

22 us to request written motions for any correction of the translation of

23 testimony which the Defence has frequently asked for. These corrections

24 are done by CLSS.

25 And as for any error by a Prosecution translator or by a CLSS

1 translator, our -- what members of the OTP believe the facts to be is not

2 evidence. The evidence is coming from witnesses and documents presented

3 in court. We are not allowed to testify, nor would a statement or an

4 error by an OTP translator or a CLSS translator be evidence. I think that

5 goes without saying. Your Honours are professional judges.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Step by step.

7 There's no objection related to the colour copies S394-1B. I

8 think we agree.

9 I think there's no objection related to S377, the English

10 translation. Or if so, may I hear the objections, S377, English

11 translation of the duty roster for 21 September 1993.

12 MR. OSTOJIC: I think we did object to the document, and we're

13 going to stand on that objection, although it was provisionally admitted

14 by the Court. So we'll continue to maintain our objection on the

15 document, Your Honour.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And that there is no doubt it's in fact the duty

17 roster for 21 September 1993? I have not the B/C/S version available at

18 the moment.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: We do object to 377, the duty roster of September

20 1993.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right. It was, I think, already admitted

22 into evidence but only as S377B, and this would be now 377A. And for the

23 reasons given frequently in the past, also the English translation will be

24 admitted and is hereby admitted into evidence as S377A.

25 For the same reasons - I don't want to repeat - is now related to

1 document S77. I don't want to call this Tribunal a Babylon, but in fact

2 all the parties should be aware that due to the fact that we have to work

3 not only in three languages but in addition we have to be aware that due

4 to our different background, different education, different experience,

5 different terminology, a number of additional problems arise. We have to

6 overcome these problems and we are all aware that here and there problems

7 with, be it the translation or the interpretation, may happen. We all are

8 making mistakes. And therefore if any mistake in the translation is

9 identified, I think it's not only the right; it's even the duty for the

10 party being aware of such a mistake immediately to draw the attention of

11 the Trial Chamber to this mistake, and we would do so in return, no doubt

12 in any event we identify, any mistake in the translation, and as you may

13 have seen throughout the hearings, when it's identified a maybe mistake by

14 the translation -- by the interpretation, that we try to do our very best

15 and in the past all the parties did their very best to have it clarified

16 immediately. And I think we should continue in this spirit of cooperation

17 not only including the parties, the Judges, but also including the work of

18 the booth, because they were of extreme assistance correcting themselves,

19 sometimes giving us advice that a word could be translated this way and

20 that way, and I think we should continue this way.

21 If the Defence so wants, we can no doubt mark this newly presented

22 document S77 in the revised translated form, mark it as S77A-1, and it

23 will be reflected from the transcript and it should be mentioned in the

24 list of exhibits that it was discussed and the origin of this document was

25 discussed in -- today in open court.

1 Objections to this procedure?

2 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

3 MR. KOUMJIAN: No, Your Honour. But Ms. Karper tells me that

4 there is a "-1" a 77-1.

5 THE REGISTRAR: There is a B-1 but not an A-1.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. So let's call it S77A-1. And then we

7 have both documents available and both admitted into evidence.

8 Hereby admitted into evidence.

9 Any other problems?

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour. I have two other issues, if I

11 may. One relates back to what the Court previously stated. And I'll try

12 to be brief. I just want clarification with respect to Exhibit S377A.

13 Why is it relevant a document that has a duty roster of individuals one

14 year after the parameters in the fourth amended indictment? As the Court

15 very well knows, the indictment is from April 30th to September 30th,

16 1992. This is a duty roster from September of 1993. We don't need to

17 argue it. I just want to make sure that my objection is on the record

18 specifically in connection with that document.

19 In addition, I have a second request that I'd like to be heard in

20 private session.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May we go step by step.

22 First, submissions to this?

23 MR. KOUMJIAN: I would remind -- I believe the witness testified

24 in closed session. But Your Honour, the document was admitted weeks ago.

25 I don't think it's proper to make an objection now weeks later. We have

1 to move forward in this case and not go backgrounds. I think the

2 relevance is obvious. I could argue it, but Your Honours have already

3 ruled on it.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think there is no good reason for this. But

5 in order to avoid a theoretical approach to this, I think we were flexible

6 enough to the past to accept as evidence documents being totally out of

7 the framework, be it in 1990. You asked questions related to -- yes,

8 already 1980, if not 1945. We had no problems, and we didn't stop the

9 Defence when asking questions on 1997, 1998, or the Prosecution asking

10 questions on this. I think it really assists us in understanding of the

11 entire case, and it can't be done on the basis limiting ourselves only

12 to -- for this concrete period of time reflected in the fourth amended

13 indictment. So, therefore, nothing has to be said in addition to this,

14 but it's quite right and I think it's a fair point for the Defence because

15 in our guidelines on the admission of evidence, it reads that either

16 aproprio motu or on request of one party a decision on the admission of

17 evidence may be reversed. So, therefore, it's a fair point, but I think

18 it's no reason -- no good reason, no good cause has been shown for

19 revising our previous ruling on this.

20 But for the second point now, let's please go into private session

21 that we can discuss the second point.

22 [Private session]

23 (redacted)

24 (redacted)

25 (redacted)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 Page 11450 – redacted – private session

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 11451 – redacted – private session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Page 11452 – redacted – private session

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 (redacted)

2 (redacted)

3 (redacted)

4 (redacted)

5 (redacted)

6 (redacted)

7 (redacted)

8 (redacted)

9 (redacted)

10 [Open session]

11 [The witness entered court]

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good afternoon, Mr. Vila. Please be seated.

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Hopefully we can conclude your testimony today.

15 So, therefore, let's start immediately.

16 Please continue.

17 WITNESS: CEDOMIR VILA [Resumed]

18 [Witness answered through interpreter]

19 Further examination by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]

20 Q. [Interpretation] Once again, good afternoon, Mr. Vila.

21 A. Good afternoon.

22 MR. LUKIC: I would like the usher to provide the witness with the

23 documents numbered D3, S180, and one unmarked document we submitted

24 yesterday to all the parties.

25 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vila, you have three documents in front of

1 you. Can you please find the statute of Prijedor Municipality, dated

2 1991, work material.

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. As you can see, at this Tribunal we only work with drafts. This

5 is a draft of the statute. So can you please tell us whether this draft

6 was ever published in any of the Official Gazettes of Prijedor

7 Municipality.

8 A. It is obligatory after the statute is adopted by the assembly to

9 publish it in the Official Gazette of the municipality. Now, whether the

10 editors' board or a publishing committee did this with this particular

11 document, I don't know. However, the text published in the Official

12 Gazette must be identical to the wording and the original text adopted by

13 the assembly.

14 Q. Thank you very much. Could you please be so kind and turn to page

15 3. Heading number III. Can you please read the title.

16 A. Roman numeral III: "The rights and duties of the municipality."

17 Q. Article number --

18 A. Article number 7.

19 Q. Would you please be so kind and turn to the following page and

20 look for item 6.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. Will you please read out item 6, all three bullets.

23 A. Item 6 --

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before we proceed, may I ask the Defence to

25 provide us with the entire Official Gazette 7 of 84. We have before us

1 only page 1, and 11, 12, 13 to 15, and then 61.

2 MR. LUKIC: We were kindly provided with copies of the whole

3 document by the OTP yesterday. We have it in our locker, and we'll

4 provide Your Honours with the copies during the first break.

5 These extracts are only for your use to easier follow, because

6 we'll address only certain points in this -- from this Official Gazette.

7 So if you agree to continue only with this partial document.

8 MR. KOUMJIAN: And just to inform the Court, this document was 65

9 ter number 1. So it may be possible to get a copy in court.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's quite clear what you intend to do.

11 Therefore, I think it's necessary to have an extremely short break that we

12 have 65 ter number 1 in its entirety before us.

13 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, we gave out seven copies yesterday,

14 and I think Mr. Cirkovic will be coming back shortly with those copies for

15 everyone.

16 MR. LUKIC: Our case manager just left. He'll be back.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Perhaps Mr. Lukic can go to another area.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would it be possible for you to first cover

19 another area and that it's easier for us to follow and -- and maybe it's

20 even more successful for you if we can follow what you're trying to prove

21 and to point out on the basis of this, comparing the draft evidently with

22 that what is reflected in the Official Gazette. So I would appreciate if

23 you could cover another area first and then this Official Gazette.

24 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, this is the only area I have to cover.

25 But five-minute break would help probably everybody.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The trial stays adjourned until the documents

2 have arrived.

3 --- Break taken at 3.08 p.m.

4 --- On resuming at 3.16 p.m.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for giving us a chance to follow the

6 proceedings.

7 MR. LUKIC: You're very welcome, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please proceed.

9 MR. LUKIC: Thank you.

10 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Vila, we are now on page 4 of the work

11 material, draft of the statute of Prijedor Municipality. Will you please

12 read item 6 of Article 7.

13 A. Item 6, first bullet: "Regulate and organise National Defence."

14 Second bullet: "Facilitate the realisation of the rights and

15 duties of citizens in connection with the defence of the country.

16 And the third one: "Manage Territorial Defence and Civil

17 Protection."

18 Q. Therefore, this statutory provision says that among the rights and

19 obligations of the municipality are also the management of Territorial

20 Defence and civil protection.

21 A. Yes.

22 Q. This provision speaks about National Defence, but it does not

23 envisage that the municipal assembly should exercise any control over any

24 of the armed forces belonging to the Ministry of Defence or the army.

25 A. No, it does not envisage any such thing.

1 Q. I would now like to ask you to please open number 65, item 1. If

2 the usher could please help you with this.

3 MR. LUKIC: Official Gazette from 1984, number 7, Official Gazette

4 of Prijedor Municipality.

5 Q. [Interpretation] At the time the assembly was still operating and

6 you were a member, it is quite obvious that this statute was not valid

7 because it envisaged three chambers for the assembly, a tricameral

8 assembly, whereas the assembly that you belonged to as a member had only

9 one chamber it was a unicameral assembly. Isn't that correct?

10 A. Yes, that's correct.

11 Q. We're only trying to use this document to show what this statute

12 envisaged, in terms of the rights and duties of the municipality. These

13 pages are not in numerical sequence, so please if you could look for page

14 206. That's actually the second page of the batch. Can you please look

15 for the heading that says "Part two," and if you could please read the

16 title out.

17 A. Part two reads: "Rights and duties of the municipality and how to

18 exercise them."

19 Q. The first article in part two is Article 14. So if you turn to

20 the next page, please read out item number 16.

21 A. Item 16 reads --

22 Q. Excuse me, please. Article 14, before the obligations are listed,

23 begins with -- can you please read the first part of the sentence.

24 A. Number 14, before that, "Regulate relations in residential and

25 communal spheres." And then item 14.

1 Q. Now item 16, please.

2 A. 16: "Establish and organise National Defence and protection in

3 accordance with the system of All People's Defence."

4 Q. There has been a slight mistake in the interpretation, so I'll

5 read this out again myself.

6 Article 14: "In the municipality, item 16, establish [Realtime

7 translation read in error "English"] and organise National Defence and

8 protection in accordance with the system of All People's Defence."

9 And Article 16, could you please read the first word of Article 16

10 in the upper right corner, "The municipality," and then item 11.

11 A. "Regulate and organise defence and protection in accordance with

12 the system of All People's Defence within the framework of its rights and

13 duties established by the constitution and laws."

14 Q. Thank you, Mr. Vila. Just a moment, please.

15 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, I apologise. But in -- on the page 23,

16 line 5, it reads: "In the municipality, Item 16, English and organise."

17 And should read "In the municipality, item 16, establish organise."

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Correct. I think this is one of the points that

19 would be automatically corrected, but no doubt you are right. It reads

20 "establish."

21 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

22 Q. Mr. Vila, can you please turn to page 223, heading number 4. And

23 could you please slowly, because you've never seen this document before

24 and we haven't spoken about this document, could you please read out the

25 whole number 4, slowly. The heading is "All People's Defence, chapter

1 IV." But please slowly so that the interpreters have time to finish the

2 interpretation and also to give yourself time to familiarise yourself with

3 the contents of this statute of Prijedor Municipality from 1984.

4 A. Chapter IV, "All People's Defence, Article 140." "Within the

5 framework of its rights and duties and in accordance --"

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Stop. As indicated previously, we try to

7 follow. And could you please indicate in the English version where to

8 find it.

9 For example, on page 71, I read Articles 140 to 159, crossed out,

10 and I'm apparently in the wrong chapter.

11 MR. LUKIC: In English version, Your Honour, it's page 61.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And I would see on page 71. If you could

13 compare it, what we -- at least what we have before us as a draft

14 translation. Here it reads: "Chapter IV: All People's Defence." And

15 then it reads, "Articles 140 to 159 are crossed out."

16 MR. LUKIC: In B/C/S version, it says, "Article 140," and it's

17 visible that on -- in the English version, on the page 70, the last

18 paragraph is 139 and the next one on the 71 page should be 140, and

19 obviously by mistake it's entered here "160."

20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I have the impression that we have different

21 documents before us. You have another English translation. You have the

22 final translation, and we all have the draft translation.

23 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I just learned that the witness is reading out

25 on the basis of D3 and not S1 -- 65 ter 1. Sorry.

1 MR. LUKIC: In our partial document, which we submitted yesterday,

2 probably final translation - it's not draft. And on page 61 it says also

3 "Article 140."

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, that's right. But --

5 MR. LUKIC: So probably we'll be able to sort out this discrepancy

6 after.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Apparently it will be able -- we will be able to

8 find out what is the problem, and maybe there is indeed opposed to the

9 draft translation, we receive during the break a final translation, so --

10 but please continue. We are aware.

11 Are there any comments given by the Prosecution on this?

12 MR. KOUMJIAN: No. Just that Your Honour is correct. Apparently

13 these are two different translations. Sorry about that. I don't believe

14 a final translation has been done, but we'll double-check that.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Okay. Proceed, please.

16 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

17 Q. [Interpretation] My apologies to you, Mr. Vila. It is sometimes

18 necessary in the course of the proceedings to clarify certain things

19 regarding the translation or interpretation. So will you please now be so

20 kind as to read to us chapter IV.

21 A. Chapter IV: "All People's Defence or all National Defence,

22 Article 140: Within the framework of its rights and duties and in

23 accordance with the constitution, the law, the National Defence system,

24 and the fundamentals of plans and preparatory measures for the defence of

25 the country, the Municipality shall regulate and organise All People's

1 Defence in its territory and harmonise and martial the preparations and

2 organisations of associated labour, local communes and self-management

3 communities of interest and other self-management organisations and

4 communities. And in case of an attack on the country, organises and

5 administers All People's resistance."

6 Article 141: "In accordance with the system of All People's

7 Defence, plans of larger social and political communities, the

8 Municipality shall organise and prepare the Territorial Defence and civil

9 defence, mobilise all available forces and resources and create material

10 and other conditions needed for the defence; perform tasks relative to the

11 military service and mobilisation and other legal obligations for the

12 requirements of the armed forces; carry out preparations and ensure the

13 training of working people and citizens, organisations of associated

14 labour, local and self-management communities of interest, and other

15 self-management organisations and communities of the municipal organs,

16 authorities, and organisations for their participation in the armed

17 struggle and other forms of resistance when protecting and rescuing the

18 population and material assets and in the course of performance of other

19 tasks of interest for the defence of the country."

20 Article 142: "The organisations of associated labour and other

21 self-management organisations and communities shall have the right and the

22 duty to organise and prepare themselves for the all national defence in

23 case of aggression; to independently and at the request of the

24 Municipality and larger sociopolitical communities making full use of all

25 potentials and available resources to ensure conditions for wartime

1 production and other public services; to organise and implement the

2 protection of people and material assets from combat operations and other

3 risks; devise defence plans laying down the basic tasks, measures, and

4 procedures at the time of an imminent threat of war and in war; provide

5 funds to finance the preparations and perform other tasks of interest for

6 the defence of the country."

7 Next paragraph: "In the local communities, the working people and

8 citizens shall organise themselves directly, prepare and train to

9 participate in resisting the aggressor, protecting and rescuing the

10 population and material assets from combat operations and also to perform

11 other tasks of importance for the defence of the country in accordance

12 with the constitution, law, this statute, and the municipal defence plan."

13 Next paragraph: "The statute of the local community shall regulate

14 the organisation and tasks for the implementation of the all national All

15 People's Defence and self-defence, self-protection, and in particular the

16 training of the population for defence and protection; shall regulate the

17 organisation of armed and other forms of all national resistance,

18 organisation, equipment, and training of the civil defence units;

19 implementation of measures for the protection and rescue of the population

20 and material assets; the drawing up of the defence plan, responsibility

21 for the preparation of administrative agencies and organs in residential

22 and other buildings in the course of preparation for All People's Defence;

23 financing of the preparations for defence and protection and performance

24 of other tasks as laid down by the municipality."

25 Article 144: "The sociopolitical organisations, depending on the

1 nature and character of their province of work, shall guide and implement

2 ideological and political, moral, and psychological preparations, and

3 initiate and guide political and other actions and measures of importance

4 for the All People's Defence, and in case of an imminent threat of war or

5 a war, shall activate their members, working people and citizens, to wage

6 struggle and other forms of resistance to the aggressor."

7 New paragraph: "Public organisations, professional and other

8 associations --"

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think here we have to stop because also the

10 document prepared by -- or produced by the Defence ends with Article 144.

11 MR. LUKIC: That's right. Only the witness didn't finish reading

12 this article.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let me check. Oh, yes. Right. Sorry. But

14 this would be the -- we agree this would be the last article to be read

15 out?

16 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour.

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] So Article 144, new paragraph:

19 "Public organisations, professional and other associations shall engage

20 in training their members for active participation in the All People's

21 Defence and in that respect shall cooperate with other organs and

22 organisations in the preparation of the national defence."

23 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, would it be a convenient time now for the

24 break and to allow Mr. Vila to read this -- this head number 4 more

25 thoroughly --

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: But before we continue with this document, may I

2 ask a question: Mr. Vila, we can read in Article 12 of this document that

3 Josip Broz Tito is the first honorary citizen of Prijedor municipality and

4 so on. And this is the Official Gazette from 1984, year 21. Has the

5 statute since then changed one or several times?

6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, it was amended, but I do not

7 know how many times. Perhaps it was only supplemented.

8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: During the time you acted as a deputy, was the

9 statute changed or was it not -- or was there only a draft change?

10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm not sure.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In the beginning, you were asked by the Defence

12 to read from a document, which was clearly a draft only. Have you ever

13 seen this draft before, and was it part of the discussion -- were you

14 involved on the discussion of this draft?

15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I cannot really remember whether I

16 participated in the work of the assembly at the time when this draft was

17 under consideration.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe during the break you can try -- I know

19 it's extremely difficult for you ten years later to find out what is your

20 best recollection of what happened, whether you worked on the basis of

21 this statute printed in the Official Gazette from 1984, because no doubt,

22 as the Defence may have seen, we are not hesitant to discuss and to admit

23 this kind of evidence save it's no longer in force in 1991, 1992, and I

24 doubt, especially based on, for example, this Article 9, declaring

25 Mr. Tito as the first honorary citizen of the Prijedor municipality,

1 whether this was in fact the actual statute. And we should in fact work

2 only with the statute which was in force in 1992. I think this should be

3 undisputed.

4 MR. LUKIC: Yes, Your Honour, you are absolutely right. All we

5 want to show with the old statute is that this draft may not have all

6 details that the real statute has, because we don't have final version.

7 We have only working version. And we want to show what usually was the

8 part of this head of the Prijedor Municipality statute. So --

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I can only state that the Bench would be more

10 than happy to have the final version of the statute in force at the time

11 we are discussing, and I'll leave it for the parties - I don't want to

12 comment who might have the easiest access to the actual statute. But

13 please try to assist the Chamber in finding the version you worked with

14 when acting as a deputy in Prijedor Municipal Assembly, the basis of your

15 own work. Maybe you yourself still have a copy of this important document

16 and can assist us with this.

17 But now it's time no doubt for the break. The trial stays adjourn

18 until quarter past 4.00.

19 --- Recess taken at 3.48 p.m.

20 --- On resuming at 4.18 p.m.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

22 May we have some additional guidance through this number of

23 documents. Please.

24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

25 Q. Mr. Vila, have you had time to go through chapter IV of the

1 municipal statute of Prijedor 1984?

2 A. Yes. Another detail that I think jogged my memory: I remember

3 that I was present at a session when the statute of the Municipality of

4 Prijedor was deliberated in June 1991. It was a draft document, and we

5 were discussing parts of articles when we had one proposed draft and then

6 alternative text. And I remember it was said that the alternative

7 definitions should be removed, should be deleted from the text that would

8 be published in the Official Gazette and to leave only the original

9 proposed draft.

10 On page 55 -- in Article 55, it says, "The executive body is made

11 of the president, vice-president, and members elected by the assembly, and

12 the alternative solution is the executive board is made of the president,

13 vice-president elected by the municipal assembly and heads of the

14 municipal administrative agencies as determined by the members of the

15 executive board."

16 THE INTERPRETER: Will you please slow down so the interpreters

17 can catch up with you..

18 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry for interrupting.

19 A. In the parliamentary practice during 1994 -- and 1997, and 1997 to

20 the end of term was there was an executive board. Article 55 was always

21 identically enforced, which tells me that this statute is in force after

22 all.

23 There is yet a number of other alternative provisions which were

24 also deleted from all the other articles by the decision of the assembly.

25 Q. Do you know if the final version of the statute of 1991 was ever

1 published by the Official Gazette and which one was that? Could you help

2 with that the Prosecution, and Defence, and the Chamber.

3 A. I know that the editorial board of the Official Gazette was

4 duty-bound to publish the municipal statute and the supreme act of the

5 municipality. However, I cannot really remember why that was not done and

6 if it was not done, and it seems to transpire from all of this

7 documentation that the Official Gazette never carried the final version,

8 at least as far as I know.

9 Q. Or perhaps we have not been able to lay our hands on that Official

10 Gazette.

11 A. I really cannot say with certainty.

12 Q. Can we now go back to the statute of 1984.

13 In Articles 140 and 141, one reads about the rights and duties of

14 the municipality. And I'd like to ask you to help us with clarifying --

15 with shedding light on some terms. What are, in point of fact,

16 organisations of associated labour indicated in Article 142?

17 A. If we translate it into today's terminology, an association of

18 associated labour is a company or an enterprise.

19 Q. In the next paragraph of Article 142, there is mention of the

20 neighbourhood of the local community. Can you tell, what is the local

21 community?

22 A. The local community still in force today. A local community is an

23 association of citizens governed by the territorial principle, that is,

24 one village, several villages, localities, or parts of localities,

25 neighbourhood communities.

1 Q. Are you aware that in 1992 some aerial Crisis Staffs were formed

2 in neighbourhood communities, in local communities?

3 A. I did not truly have an opportunity to communicate with or to see,

4 but I am aware that in some local communities, local Crisis Staffs were

5 set up, so-called local Crisis Staffs, and I believe that their role was

6 the fuel supply, purchase of wheat, and some other activities falling

7 within the province of work of the municipality.

8 Q. In the Official Gazette itself, there is an error in numbering, so

9 that after Article 142 we have Article 144. Article 144 mentions

10 sociopolitical organisations. Could you please translate this term into

11 today's parlance and tell us what are the sociopolitical organisations.

12 A. At that time the sociopolitical organisations were parties, or

13 rather, the Socialist Alliance of Working People as the broadest front of

14 organised forces since prior to the elections of 1990 we had a mono-party

15 system, communist -- or rather, the League of Communists, and the

16 Socialist Alliance of the Working People.

17 Q. I believe that the Federation of Youth also made part of that.

18 A. Yes, yes, the Federation of Youth did, but not the trade unions.

19 Q. After Article 144 is paragraph 2, makes mention of public or

20 social organisations.

21 A. Public or social organisations, if my memory serves me well, were

22 some organisations or associations, such as a hunters' club or fisherman's

23 club and other associations.

24 Q. Now, will you please go back to Articles 140 and 141, where the

25 role of municipalities is prescribed in organising the all national

1 defence, or the All People's Defence. Article 141 says that the -- in the

2 municipality, the Territorial Defence were reorganised and prepared and

3 the civil defence too, and that working people and citizens --

4 associations of associated labour, local communities, and self-management

5 interest communities too.

6 Can you in either of these two articles or elsewhere in this

7 chapter see it say that the municipality is responsible for organising the

8 army or the police for the defence of its territory?

9 A. Articles 140 and 141 do not show us anywhere that the municipality

10 is responsible for commanding or controlling the army or the police. It

11 is responsible for ensuring the material, technical resources, and

12 organisation of the Territorial Defence in enterprises and neighbourhood,

13 local communities; that is, that it's responsible for the civil defence in

14 case of natural disasters.

15 Q. Could you now please have a look at document no. S180. This is

16 Official Gazette of Prijedor Municipality no. 2 and 1992. I would like to

17 ask you something in connection with Article 6 -- Article 9. It's about

18 the decision and organisation on the work of the Crisis Staff of Prijedor

19 Municipality adopted at a session of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly on

20 the 20th of May, 1992.

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: For the assistance of the usher, you're making

22 reference now to Article 6 or 9?

23 MR. LUKIC: Article 6. Yes, Your Honour.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So thank you. The English version should be

25 shown on the ELMO, please, Article 6.

1 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

2 Q. Have you read Article 6?

3 A. [No interpretation]

4 Q. Yesterday we concluded that you were not a military expert.

5 However, if we read through the provisions of Article 7 of the statute of

6 the Prijedor Municipality dated 1991 and the provisions of chapter IV of

7 the statute of the Prijedor Municipality dated 1984, is it your opinion

8 not as an expert but your personal opinion -- Article 6, which envisages

9 the functions of the Crisis Staff in the area of defence activities, do

10 you think that's outside the scope and competence of the municipal

11 assembly?

12 A. In my opinion, in Article 6, which envisages that the Crisis Staff

13 can coordinate work, review issues related to mobilisation, issues related

14 to material needs and sources for the funding of national defence and

15 familiarise itself with the general overall situation across the

16 municipality and to monitor the implementation of military recruitment,

17 none of these activities shows that there is the authority to exercise

18 command or to participate in commanding any military structures.

19 Q. The command responsibility, can you see any traces of any command

20 responsibility in Article 9 of the same decision at all?

21 A. In Article 9, we read that the Crisis Staff has permanent

22 cooperation with the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

23 with the civilian protection, and with the public security through

24 superiors and the commanding staff of these institutions as well as

25 through the executive board, which is an executive body. However, it's

1 impossible to glean from this any elements of any possibility of

2 commanding any military structures or participating in the command over or

3 of any military structures.

4 Q. For my part, we are finished now with this particular area of

5 questioning, but I do have one further question. You told us that the

6 Radical Party which Dr. Stakic belonged to was not the same Radical Party

7 as Vojislav Seselj's Radical Party. Are you aware that the exact name of

8 the party is National Radical Party Nikola Pasic? If you don't know, feel

9 free to say so.

10 A. I'm not sure.

11 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, just one correction. We think that the

12 name of the party shouldn't be National Radical Party, but People's

13 Radical Party Nikola Pasic.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think this is one of the agreed facts between

15 all participants in this Trial Chamber. Okay.

16 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]

17 Q. Are you familiar with the fact that Muslims and Croats were

18 members of this party too?

19 A. Yes. I did hear of that. In Prijedor, when the party was

20 originally established, Muslims were members of the party too, and I heard

21 from some people that Mr. Murselovic -- Mr. Murselovic's father was also

22 an original member of this party.

23 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Prosecution, please.

25 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, before I begin, perhaps we can clarify

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12 Blank pages inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and

13 English transcripts. Pages 11472 to 11481.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 that translation issue with the help of Mr. Lukic. But I know, isn't it

2 correct that, the word narod could be translated as either a people or

3 nation or nationality?

4 MR. LUKIC: "Nacionalna means "national." Narodna means

5 "peoples."

6 MR. KOUMJIAN: So the word -- the name of the party so we can have

7 it in B/C/S is nacionalna?

8 MR. LUKIC: Narodna --

9 MR. KOUMJIAN: And isn't it correctly that the word Narodna could

10 be translated -- well, we can argue about that later as long as we have it

11 on the record. Thank you.

12 Further cross-examination by Mr. Koumjian:

13 Q. Sir, do you know was Mr. Guberina and Mr. Seselj in the same party

14 at one time?

15 A. As far as I know, they were not. But I can't be certain, because

16 both parties were originally set up in Serbia but then before the

17 multi-party elections, they appeared in Bosnia-Herzegovina too.

18 Q. You've read several articles regarding the responsibility of the

19 municipality and the Crisis Staff for All People's Defence. This concept

20 of All People's Defence was very fundamental in the defence plans of the

21 former Yugoslavia; correct?

22 A. Yes.

23 Q. And this concept was that in the event of war, that the entire

24 nation, the entire country, would be mobilised so that all individuals,

25 all businesses or economic enterprise, all public and government and

1 political institutions could work in a coordinated manner for the war

2 effort; correct?

3 A. All defence plans applied to a possible external aggression,

4 aggression from outside, because that was the idea at the time, that if

5 there was to be an attack, it would have come from the outside.

6 Q. Well, thank you for pointing that out. In fact, who was the enemy

7 in Prijedor municipality? It wasn't a foreign army, was it? It was

8 citizens of Prijedor who opposed the takeover; correct?

9 A. This is a very complex issue, and it's very difficult to define

10 this whole issue in just one sentence.

11 Q. Okay. Let's break it down. Was the enemy within Prijedor

12 municipality a foreign army?

13 A. Aside from the population of Bosnia-Herzegovina itself and in some

14 cases paramilitary units, there was no other army.

15 Q. In fact, when you talk about conflict in a place like Kozarac or

16 the 30th of May and the attack on Prijedor, you're talking about what you

17 considered at that time an enemy who were also citizens of Prijedor;

18 correct?

19 A. Those were armed people, distinguishing among themselves along

20 ethnic lines in different ways. Those people had obtained weapons, and

21 the result of that was serious conflict.

22 Q. Sir, I asked you to please answer the questions that I ask. Were

23 they citizens of Prijedor?

24 A. One cannot know for sure or say for sure that they were all and

25 one citizens of Prijedor.

1 Q. Well, in fact, they were interrogated, many of them, they were

2 arrested, and they were identified, and in fact they were all to your

3 knowledge citizens of Prijedor; correct?

4 A. In the majority of the cases, yes.

5 Q. Sir, a Crisis Staff was formed, according to what you've told us,

6 in the event of war or the imminent state of war, a Crisis Staff or War

7 Presidency. And that is exactly the time when also the concept of All

8 People's Defence takes hold, correct, in a state of war or imminent state

9 of war? Correct?

10 A. Yes. The setting up of a presidency is prescribed if the assembly

11 is unable to operate or a Crisis Staff, if there is an imminent threat of

12 war or a state of war.

13 Q. The statute of the Crisis Staff, which is S180, that Mr. Lukic

14 referred to you, in Article 6 -- I don't want to read again because we've

15 read it at least once, but it indicates that the --

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's still on the ELMO.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Thank you.

18 Q. For example, in the second-to-last point, "that the Crisis Staff

19 shall keep abreast of all aspects of the situation in the Municipality,

20 essential for the waging of armed combat and take appropriate measures."

21 Two questions, sir: How does the Crisis Staff keep abreast of all

22 aspects of the situation essential for the waging of armed combat?

23 A. As far as I in my capacity of deputy know, information was

24 circulated on the political and security situation in the area. Whether

25 there were any additional aspects, I really don't know.

1 Q. Well, in the specific case of Prijedor, that would mean receiving

2 information from people like Colonel Colic, Vladimir Arsic, Radmilo

3 Zeljaja, who were the commanders in the army in the Prijedor area;

4 correct?

5 A. They were commanders. And as far as I know, they were not in

6 Prijedor the whole time. They were wherever they needed to be, so in

7 other places too, especially later when the war became really serious.

8 Q. Sir, my question is: Wasn't it necessary for the Crisis Staff to

9 receive information from these commanders?

10 A. I must say this again. As far as I know, it was the information

11 on the political and security situation, and that's how the assembly was

12 familiarised with the situation, was informed of the situation. I, as a

13 deputy, do not know anything else about that.

14 Q. Well, sir, yesterday we went through the assembly minutes of a

15 session that you said you were present at where Colonel Arsic, Colonel

16 Colic, and -- were present and briefed the assembly on the security

17 situation; correct?

18 A. Yes.

19 Q. How, in your opinion -- the sentence I just read from Article 6

20 says that the Crisis Staff shall take appropriate measures after receiving

21 this information -- do you understand this to mean that the Crisis Staff

22 would take appropriate measures to facilitate the work of the army in

23 conducting the war within the concept of All People's Defence?

24 A. I can't say for sure because I have no information regarding that.

25 Q. If we go to the document the Official Gazette of 1994. We have

1 the excerpts -- I'm sorry. I'm looking for the number of that document.

2 D...?

3 THE REGISTRAR: It would be marked D55.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: D55.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Sorry. We can't proceed with these absolutely

6 confusing documents. Before we continue, may I ask the witness be

7 shown -- and I really can't go in details. We have apparently two

8 absolutely different versions of the Prijedor Official Gazette from 1984,

9 and therefore I would ask the usher to please be so kind, put this

10 document on the ELMO. And I don't know -- I just received it from -- I

11 don't know from which party it came. I received it --

12 THE REGISTRAR: From the OTP, Your Honour.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

14 Okay. Could you please be so kind and -- I think the parties can

15 immediately identify that's at least another copy. What can we read at

16 the top of the page?

17 MR. KOUMJIAN: Can we have just --

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: On the right-hand side?

19 MR. KOUMJIAN: Can we have just a moment because we may have

20 confused things. We're just trying to see what we've handed out. Just a

21 moment.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. But I want to proceed with this in the

23 meantime.

24 What can we read on the top of the page, right-hand side, over the

25 word "Glasnik"?

1 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it says Ksenija. I think

2 that's a name.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then when we go -- go down, it reads

4 something like "9/85." Could you please read what we can see there.

5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can see, it says in

6 Latinic script "amendments and supplements."

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Amendments and supplements.

8 And then is it correct that --

9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] As far as I can tell.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. That it continues "6/90"? And what can we

11 read then after "6/90"?

12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I think it says "Article 16

13 revoked."

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And we can see that Roman III is crossed out and

15 at the side we can read "6/90."

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] That probably means "1990."

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So bringing this information on the top line

18 together with this 6/90, I don't know whether you yourself - and of course

19 you're not an expert - but maybe working on the basis of a statute to the

20 best of your recollection, was it at that time that parts of the statute

21 were no longer in force and, therefore, they were crossed out?

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] At that time I was not a deputy in

23 the local parliament, and I was in no position to be in possession of any

24 information regarding these issues.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it's your testimony that you did not work as

1 a deputy on the basis of this concrete statute? Because when working as a

2 deputy, one prerequisite, no doubt, is to have the fundamental documents.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I can't say for sure that at the

4 time when I was a deputy - that's between 1990 and 1994 - that this was

5 valid or not valid.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it would in fact not be for you when you

7 state that you were not confronted at all with this kind of document,

8 because in most parts whenever a article is crossed out, we find reference

9 to 6/90 or other concrete dates. And, for example, the articles read out

10 by you, they were also crossed out in the document I have before me. So

11 it would be then for the parties to discuss this matter and not leave it

12 for the Trial Chamber as a guessing game what is valid, what has been

13 redacted in 1985; for example, on page 251, what has been redacted, and

14 81, same page; 90, same page. So therefore, I'm not prepared to admit

15 anything related to this document in evidence before we have some better

16 and further explanation and an entire final not only draft translation of

17 this concrete version, where we have handwritten amendments in addition.

18 And we should leave open D55 for the purpose of these documents. And I

19 think it will be necessary to have all the versions tendered by both

20 parties admitted into evidence and later -- but please provide us with the

21 full translation of this document in English, and only this can form a

22 basis of our proceedings.

23 So please continue.

24 MR. KOUMJIAN:

25 Q. Okay. Sir, I'll move on to a different document. You were shown

1 earlier - and I don't think it's necessary to show it again - S180 and a

2 decision on appointments to the Crisis Staff.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's still in the hand of the usher, S180.

4 MR. KOUMJIAN: Perhaps that could be put on the ELMO, page 1 of

5 the translation --

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Official Gazette 2, 92.

7 MR. KOUMJIAN: Let's see. Number 19 on the first page, "Decision

8 on appointments to Prijedor Municipal Crisis Staff."

9 If we could zoom out a bit.

10 Q. Sir, under number 6 -- the first page, the sixth name. Why was

11 Simo Drljaca appointed to the Crisis Staff?

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Could you please direct the usher to the

13 concrete page in English.

14 MR. KOUMJIAN: Yes. It's the first page, I believe, page number 1

15 on the bottom, page 1 of the translation. Yes.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: That's it.

17 MR. KOUMJIAN:

18 Q. Sir, why was Simo Drljaca put on the Crisis Staff?

19 A. Obviously that this number, Simo Drljaca, chief of Prijedor Public

20 Security Station, he's appointed a member. What is the real reason, I

21 really do not know.

22 Q. Sir, wasn't it a fact that the Crisis Staff made many decisions

23 that impacted upon the work of the police?

24 A. Yes. The list shows that certain activities and decisions,

25 conclusions, orders of the Crisis Staff were being put through, and that

1 includes activities requesting information from the police in relation to

2 this or that.

3 Q. Well, sir, didn't the Crisis Staff set up the Omarska camp?

4 A. I really have no knowledge if the camp was established by the

5 army, police, or any -- or which other structure, because in no document,

6 in no meeting, communication could I get such information, and I really do

7 not know.

8 Q. You were an elected member of the Prijedor Assembly who continued

9 in the assembly after the takeover, and you don't know who set up the

10 Omarska camp?

11 A. What I know certainly is that the Municipal Assembly of Prijedor

12 never took a decision or verified somebody else's decision to do that, at

13 least not at the sessions that I attended.

14 Q. So would it be correct, sir, that you don't know what decisions

15 were made by the Crisis Staff that were never sent to the assembly?

16 A. Yes. Apart from the information and material considered at

17 assembly sessions, I as a councilman, I was not privy to other

18 information.

19 Q. Sir, in answer to Judge Vassylenko's questions about work

20 assignments, you mentioned a body of the Defence Ministry, and you also

21 mentioned that body at another point in your testimony when talking about

22 mobilisations for the army.

23 If you look at the document in front of you, you will see number 7

24 - pointing to the Crisis Staff - is Slavko Budimir, secretary of

25 Prijedor's Municipal Secretariat for People's Defence. Is that the local

1 branch of the organ that you were speaking about, responsible for

2 mobilisations?

3 A. I've already said, and I will repeat it, that the Ministry of the

4 Army at the municipal level is responsible for setting up defence

5 departments, and they are tasked with the call-up and provision of

6 materiel.

7 Q. Are you saying, sir, that Mr. Slavko Budimir was not responsible

8 for mobilisations? That wasn't the work of his Secretariat for People's

9 Defence?

10 A. Yes, following the order of the minister and the proclaimed level

11 of mobilisation, he sent out summons to military conscripts in the area,

12 and that is what others in other municipalities did identically.

13 Q. Sir, in yesterday's transcript on page 46 of the LiveNote, line

14 17, beginning the question on live 15, you were asked: "In the period

15 between April and September 1992, did you ever hear of the existence of a

16 body named Crisis Staff?"

17 You answered: "Yes. During a session of the assembly. I think

18 that it was in late May, towards the end of May 1992, during a session of

19 the assembly a so-called Crisis Staff was set up."

20 I won't read further unless anyone requests me to.

21 You were also shown a document, the one that's still on the ELMO

22 in front of you, which indicates that the Crisis Staff was set up in the

23 first -- the beginning of this article states, at its meeting of 22nd May,

24 1992 Prijedor Municipal Assembly, and then some quotations to the law,

25 adopted the following decision on appointments to Prijedor Municipal

1 Crisis Staff.

2 In fact, sir, the Crisis Staff existed before -- excuse me. I

3 believe that date -- before that decision; isn't that correct?

4 A. I heard about the Crisis Staff and its establishment, heard first

5 as a councilman because it was one of the items at the assembly's session.

6 Q. When did you hear that the Crisis Staff was established?

7 A. Well, when the assembly decided to organise the Crisis Staff, at a

8 later meeting of the assembly.

9 Q. Was the Crisis Staff a body that coordinated within the concept of

10 All People's Defence the conduct of the armed conflict in Prijedor in

11 coordination with the army and with the police?

12 A. To my knowledge, as a councilman and according to other

13 information, a ministry department and its representative on the Crisis

14 Staff is responsible for the mobilisation of men and the materiel, and the

15 public security and its chief are responsible for the protection of

16 people, public peace and order, and materiel.

17 Q. Was the Crisis Staff itself, did it have responsibilities for

18 mobilisation within Prijedor municipality?

19 A. The mobilisation is laid down by statute, and that is how it is

20 carried out. The chief of the department for army matters receives an

21 order from the Minister of the Army ordering to carry out the mobilisation

22 up to a certain percentage, and that is -- and they act upon it. So there

23 is an entire structure which is responsible for it in the department of

24 the Ministry of Defence. As far as I know, 15 to 17 professionals work

25 there -- I mean worked there in the previous period and at the time under

1 consideration, and at that time that we are talking about the head was

2 Mr. -- its chief was Mr. Slavko Budimir. When I say "its chief," I mean

3 its head.

4 Q. Sir, if you'd please answer my question. If you don't know the

5 answer, you can say you don't know. I gather from your answer that your

6 answer is no, but let me repeat the question. Did the Crisis Staff itself

7 have responsibilities for mobilisation within Prijedor municipality?

8 A. No.

9 Q. Thank you. Was the Crisis Staff responsible for issues as to the

10 status of deployed forces in Prijedor?

11 A. I do not understand what you mean by "the status."

12 Q. Okay. Did the Crisis Staff issue -- was it responsible for

13 disarming -- for the disarmament of paramilitaries?

14 A. No.

15 MR. KOUMJIAN: Could the witness be shown S60.

16 Q. While that's being prepared, sir, I understand you indicated you

17 never attended any meetings of the Council for National Defence for

18 Prijedor. Is that correct?

19 A. I wasn't present.

20 Q. If you could please take a moment and look at the minutes of the

21 fourth meeting of the Council of National Defence of Prijedor Municipality

22 held on the 15th of May, 1992.

23 Sir, the individual responsible by law for presiding over the

24 Council for National Defence of Prijedor is the president of the

25 municipality; correct?

1 A. I am not sure.

2 Q. Thank you. Sir, the minutes in front of you indicate a list of

3 persons attending. Among those persons are Vladimir Arsic, Pero Colic,

4 Radmilo Zeljaja, and all three of these were members of the military;

5 correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. Also in attendance was Slobodan Kuruzovic, who at that time was

8 the head of the Serbian Territorial Defence, the Serbian TO; correct?

9 A. He is.

10 Q. And also in attendance was Simo Drljaca, who was in charge of the

11 police in Prijedor; correct?

12 A. It is.

13 Q. And the agenda of this meeting indicates that the organisation

14 that the National Defence Council discussed organising the Crisis Staff,

15 mobilisation, and the municipality, the status of deployed forces,

16 disarmament of the paramilitary formations, and taking over the duties of

17 the military department. Do you have any reason to believe that this

18 organisation with these individuals did not discuss these issues on the

19 15th of May, 1992?

20 A. I was not in a situation, nor did I know who was on the Council

21 for All People's Defence or what they did.

22 Q. Okay. Thank you. And you testified that the law provided that

23 only the assembly could establish a War Presidency or Crisis Staff. But

24 this document indicates that the formation of the Crisis Staff was decided

25 by the National Defence Council on the 15th of May, before the assembly

1 met after the takeover; correct?

2 A. The assembly was not aware of it, nor was it informed about it

3 when the establishment of the Crisis Staff was proposed to it.

4 Q. As a member of the assembly, do you believe it is the

5 responsibility of the president of the assembly, who is also the president

6 of the National Defence Council, to keep the assembly informed about

7 events of importance in Prijedor?

8 A. Yes. The councilmen should have been told that.

9 Q. Okay.

10 MR. KOUMJIAN: No further questions.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes, Mr. Lukic.

12 MR. LUKIC: Your Honour, just one short question regarding this

13 document.

14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I just stay with this. I'll give you the

15 floor immediately, and maybe in reaction to this question you can be even

16 more concrete.

17 Questioned by the Court:

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yesterday's testimony, LiveNote page 49, line 1

19 through 3. When asked did you participate in the meeting of 22nd of May,

20 1992, you said, "I said yesterday that I am not sure that I attended this

21 session, but I said that I was at the session at which decisions, orders,

22 and other conclusions were ratified."

23 Maybe when thinking back to -- on what you have testified

24 yesterday there was some assistance that you could refresh your memory

25 whether or not you participated in this meeting of 22nd of May, 1992.

1 A. No.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Previous translation continues] ... on the

3 composition of the Crisis Staff.

4 Today on page 47, line 6, you answered -- line 6 -- "I heard about

5 the Crisis Staff and its establishment, heard first as a councilman

6 because it was one of the items at the assembly's session."

7 So to the best of your recollection, when did you hear as a

8 councilman that this was one of the items of the assembly's session?

9 A. I cannot say with certainty, but there is no doubt that I must

10 have learned about it not later than the time when the conclusions and

11 decisions of the Crisis Staff were being adopted. I do not say -- I

12 cannot say -- I am not quite sure whether I learnt about it before that

13 from the Official Gazette, because the Official Gazette is not delivered

14 specially to councilmen.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Isn't it true that an agenda was distributed

16 before the meeting of the municipal assembly started, and was it sent to

17 all members of the municipal assembly?

18 A. As a rule, the agenda is delivered to councilmen earlier, but very

19 often all the accompanying material is not being sent along, apart from a

20 note saying that the necessary papers will either be distributed at the

21 session itself or reasoned out at the session itself.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So would it be consequent to expect that on an

23 agenda for a assembly meeting to come, one could read "establishment of a

24 Crisis Staff," and then "composition of the Crisis Staff"? We have to

25 make a distinction between the meetings the 20th of May, 1992 and then the

1 22nd of May, 1992. Could you please answer and not only nod, because it's

2 not reflected on the transcript when you are nodding only.

3 A. I'm sorry. I wasn't quite listening. I've lost concentration.

4 Could you repeat the question, please.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: My question was: Wouldn't it be consequent then

6 that there was an agenda in preparation of the meeting of the 20th of May

7 indicating that on this agenda one, if not the only point, was

8 establishment of a Crisis Staff and then as a follow-up, the next meeting,

9 22nd of May, a composition of the Crisis Staff?

10 A. The invitation, I presume, said "Decision to establish Crisis

11 Staff." But the draft agenda did not contain the decision or the next

12 one, which spoke about this composition, that is, the item on the agenda

13 is the composition of the Crisis Staff. But I'm quite sure that the

14 invitation to the councilmen did not say who would be those individuals.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would mean that you received an invitation

16 prior to the meeting 20 May 1992 indicating, as you said, decision to

17 establish Crisis Staff?

18 A. Yes.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Wouldn't this be such an important issue on the

20 agenda that you felt necessary to participate in these extraordinary times

21 in the session of the municipal assembly? I just want to refresh your

22 memory whether you maybe had personal impediments, obstacles depriving you

23 from participating in this extraordinary, important meeting of the

24 assembly or based on this you come to the conclusion that you

25 participated, in fact, in both meetings.

1 A. I am really trying, but I cannot remember whether I was present in

2 the assembly.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So would it be a correct conclusion you were

4 confronted with a -- with the minutes of the fourth meeting of the Council

5 for National Defence of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly held on 15th May

6 1992, then prior to the meeting of the 20th of May you received an

7 invitation indicating that one item or one issue of this meeting was the

8 establishment of a Crisis Staff? Correct?

9 A. It is.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. That we hopefully can finalise this

11 round of questions now, but of course it's for the parties to decide

12 themselves.

13 Two other areas where I didn't have a final certainty based on

14 yesterday's transcript. You told us on page 47 of LiveNote transcript

15 line 6 through 9 that you yourself participated in the ratification of the

16 previous orders. You said, "Yes, but I must say that these were just the

17 title of these orders, decisions, conclusions without their contents."

18 My question now as a follow-up would be: Did you ever request

19 when you had the impression that the one or other decision, conclusion, or

20 order seemed to be of some importance for you, did you ever request to see

21 the underlying entire document?

22 A. I cannot remember if either I or any other councilmen asked for

23 that.

24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Were you ever aware that maybe -- or did you

25 verify whether all orders, decisions, conclusions of the Crisis Staff were

1 included in this document, only as you told us by the title?

2 A. No.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So it would be possible that there would be

4 orders, decisions, conclusions of the Crisis Staff not mentioned in this

5 document?

6 A. Yes.

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you regard it as a mistake and a breach of

8 rules of the municipal assembly if there were such orders, decisions,

9 conclusions not included in this document but nevertheless taken by the

10 Crisis Staff?

11 A. If there was any such thing, it must have been a mistake.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And a final area. With the assistance of

13 Defence counsel, we found out yesterday that, as you testified previously,

14 that in the case of the absence - I make reference to LiveNote page 37,

15 lines 11 through 18 - you testified that in the absence of Dr. Stakic, it

16 would be for Mr. Savanovic to sign on behalf za Dr. Stakic. Correct?

17 A. Yes.

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then we found out with the assistance of

19 Defence counsel that in fact we were confronted with two documents where

20 we could read in writing "Dr. Milomir Stakic" but then later on not a

21 signature which seems to be or which could be a signature of

22 Mr. Savanovic. What was the rule? In the absence of both Dr. Stakic and

23 Mr. Savanovic, who would be the competent person then to sign?

24 A. No third person would have had the authority to sign. This would

25 not have been legal for any third person.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So whoever signed this document would have acted

2 illegally?

3 A. Yes.

4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You were not asked yesterday whether you could

5 by chance identify one of the signatures you saw with the za under the

6 typed name of Dr. Milomir Stakic.

7 A. I don't think I can glean the point of your question from the

8 interpretation I have received.

9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: My question was: You saw yesterday two

10 documents where apparently there was a signature under the typed name

11 "Dr. Milomir Stakic" that without any doubt were not the signatures of

12 either Dr. Stakic or Mr. Savanovic. My question was: To the best of your

13 recollection, did you by chance identify one of these signatures you saw?

14 A. No. I was not able to identify either of the signatures. I am

15 not familiar with those signatures.

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So this would conclude my questions.

17 [Trial Chamber confers]

18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: So, please, Mr. Lukic.

19 MR. LUKIC: I would just like to clarify something regarding the

20 last document the Prosecution showed the witness. It's document number

21 S60. So could the usher be so kind and show the witness this document.

22 Re-examined by Mr. Lukic:

23 Q. [Interpretation] You do have the document before you, Mr. Vila,

24 don't you?

25 Down the middle of the page, top of the page, first we see minutes

1 of the agenda and then the first thing we can see is "Conclusion. Will

2 you please tell us -- will you please read for us the conclusion itself,

3 what the conclusion was. Just the first paragraph, please.

4 A. "The draft of the decision on the organisation and functioning of

5 the Crisis Staff is approved under the proviso that a representative of

6 the garrison in Prijedor be added to the proposed list of members of the

7 Crisis Staff."

8 Q. Will you please now take document S180, which is the Official

9 Gazette of Prijedor municipality number 2/92. Turn to page 37. I wish to

10 ask you something about the decision on appointments to the Crisis Staff

11 of Prijedor Municipality. On page 37, there is a list of people who were

12 appointed members of the Crisis Staff of Prijedor Municipality.

13 Among these people who are listed here - there are ten people

14 altogether, ten names - do you recognise anyone from the Prijedor

15 Garrison?

16 A. No, I don't.

17 Q. By adopting this decision, does the adoption of this decision mean

18 implementation of the decisions from the Council for National Defence of

19 Prijedor Municipality or not?

20 A. No.

21 Q. Thank you. I have no further questions.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let me ask all the participants. Any further

23 questions to this long testimony to be added? I can't see any.

24 Thank you, Mr. Vila, for following this journey through a jungle

25 of documents, and I wish you a safe trip home to your home country and

1 your home town. Thank you.

2 And the witness may be escorted out of the courtroom, please.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much, Your Honours.

4 [The witness withdrew]

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Before we have the short break, the Trial

6 Chamber has discussed the issue of whether or not to continue the hearing

7 on Monday, the 10th, and we can't see any possibility to vacate the

8 decision to continue the trial Monday, the 10th of February. And we took

9 into account that it was scheduled to have a hearing the 10th and 11th of

10 February, and no doubt it takes at least ten days of preparation, and we

11 are convinced that the Defence was and still is prepared to have a witness

12 to be called for the 10th of February. And in addition, we would ask the

13 Defence also to take care that a witness will be available on Friday, the

14 7th of February. Maybe a witness covering two days that we could hear

15 this witness February 7th or February 10th.

16 Please let us know before the end of this hearing what your

17 intention is, how to proceed, because it would be then for us to take the

18 necessary steps to proceed with the hearing and the hearing in this case.

19 The trial stays adjourned until 6.00 sharp.

20 --- Recess taken at 5.37 p.m.

21 --- On resuming at 5.59 p.m.

22 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please be seated.

23 I thought Defence counsel wanted to answer immediately when

24 standing up.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. We're grateful for the

1 opportunity to address the Court again.

2 In connection with this issue, we tried to contact our

3 investigator in the field and were unable to do so. However, we will

4 endeavour to bring a witness so that we could fill those days as requested

5 by the Court. Right now we can't tell you with any certainty who the

6 witness is and whether or not that will be accomplished, but you have our

7 confidence as officers of the court that we will endeavour to bring

8 another witness so that we can complete the day on Friday, as well as

9 Monday, February 10th.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you for this cooperation, and we would

11 appreciate whenever possible to let our legal officer know when you know

12 exactly that you have a witness available and who this will be. Thank

13 you.

14 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May I then ask the usher to escort the next

16 witness into the courtroom.

17 Any protective measures not announced until now?

18 MR. OSTOJIC: No, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you.

20 [The witness entered court]

21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good evening, Mr. Vuleta. Can you hear me in --

22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good afternoon.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Can you hear me in a language you understand?

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, I can, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Would you please be so kind and give us your

1 solemn declaration.

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

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

4 WITNESS: CEDO VULETA

5 [Witness answered through interpreter]

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. You may take your seat. And as it's

7 a Defence witness, the floor is for Mr. Ostojic. Please.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

9 Examined by Mr. Ostojic:

10 Q. Good evening, Mr. Vuleta. As you know, my name is John Ostojic,

11 and along with Branko Lukic and Danilo Cirkovic, we represent Milomir

12 Stakic.

13 I would ask, sir, that you state for the record your name and your

14 surname.

15 A. Cedo Vuleta.

16 Q. Would you be kind enough to move your chair a little closer to the

17 mike, to the microphone, please.

18 A. [The witness complies]

19 Q. May you give us your date of birth.

20 A. The 15th of July, 1958.

21 Q. Mr. Vuleta, where do you presently reside?

22 A. I reside in the village of Srednja Maricka.

23 Q. Could you tell us in what municipality that village is in.

24 A. In Prijedor municipality.

25 Q. Sir, what is your ethnic background?

1 A. I'm a Serb.

2 Q. In the spring and summer of 1992, where did you reside?

3 A. I resided in Maricka.

4 Q. The same village as you do presently in the municipality of

5 Prijedor; correct?

6 A. I still reside in the same village.

7 Q. Can you share with us briefly your educational background. Where

8 did you go to school, when, and what degree did you obtain?

9 A. I went to elementary school and completed elementary school in the

10 village of Maricka and my secondary education in the village of Prijedor.

11 And after that I studied -- I studied electronics, electrical engineering.

12 Q. Are you, sir, an electrician as a tradesman?

13 A. No. I am an electrician working for the Omarska mine.

14 Q. When you referenced the Omarska mine, you're referring to the iron

15 ore mine that's located in the town of Omarska; correct?

16 A. Yes, that's correct.

17 Q. Can you tell us how long you've worked at the iron ore mine.

18 A. I have worked for the iron ore mine since mid-November 1984 and to

19 this very day.

20 Q. Just briefly, if you can, tell us where you worked prior to being

21 employed at the iron ore mine.

22 A. Prior to my employment in the Omarska iron ore mine, I was working

23 in Split in a shipyard. And after that I worked in Zagreb for the city

24 trams.

25 Q. During both those tenures of employment, in what capacity were you

1 employed?

2 A. I worked as an electrician, and I was in charge of electrical

3 production lines and electrical equipment.

4 Q. Can you tell us if you have any military service.

5 A. I did my regular military service from the 11th of March, 1977 at

6 military post 7225 Pula. I was in the marine artillery. To -- I can't

7 remember the exact date, but it was in June 1978.

8 Q. If we can focus a bit on your tenure in your present employment at

9 the iron ore mine from mid-November 1984 through the present. Can you

10 describe for us your general duties and obligations and in essence your

11 day-to-day work that you perform at the iron ore mine during those

12 significant years.

13 A. While the iron ore mine was still operating and while production

14 was ongoing in the iron ore mine, I was working on maintenance of BTO

15 systems and other electronic equipment and installations in the iron ore

16 mine.

17 Q. Sir, were you also responsible during this time period for

18 maintenance of generators and water pumps as well?

19 A. Yes, I was responsible for that too.

20 Q. Describe for us, if you will, how it is that an electrician or a

21 man with your area of specialties is involved with the water pumping

22 system and the generators in an iron ore mine so that we can have a better

23 appreciation of what it is you do.

24 A. I don't think I quite understand the question. What you want me

25 to explain? Will you please try to rephrase the question.

1 Q. I'll try. When you discussed the water pump at the iron ore mine

2 and the water pumps that are there, they're generated and the output or

3 the pressure of these water pumps is generated through electrical currents

4 and electrical conduits; correct?

5 A. Yes. I worked on water pumps, water pumps pumping water from the

6 depth of up to 180 metres, and the water pumping stations that would spout

7 surface water. The iron ore mine is essentially a deep pit between 150

8 and 200 kilometres in depth and about a kilometre across, so that's where

9 the iron ore was dug. The pumps were supposed to throw all the water from

10 the inside out all the time. There were many mining machines, diggers,

11 conveyer belts, so the water had to be pumped out, because if the water

12 wasn't pumped out, the whole production lines underground would be

13 flooded.

14 Q. And it was, sir, your job responsibility throughout this period of

15 1984 through 2003, to the present, to ensure that there was a water supply

16 and that the system with respect to the water supply operated

17 appropriately and regularly in the iron ore mine; correct?

18 A. Yes, that's correct.

19 Q. Now, this water that is being brought into the iron ore mine

20 through these water pumps and generators, as you've described them, that

21 water was utilised for what purpose, sir?

22 A. The water would be pumped out of the mine and then through the

23 water pipeline, the water would be led to the river of Gomjenica.

24 Q. Could you tell us how prior to 1992 water at the iron ore mine was

25 being brought there for people who were employed to drink or to use the

1 facilities, namely the bathroom facilities. How would they accomplish

2 receiving water at the iron ore mine?

3 A. That's a different story altogether. The iron ore mine got its

4 drinking water from a special water well containing drinking water which

5 was located in Donja Lamovita. The village of Donja Lamovita was between

6 5 and 6 kilometres from the mine. There were deep water pumps there

7 pumping the water out and throwing the water into a basin, into a pool in

8 Gradina, near the church, and then potable drinking water would flow down

9 the same way back towards the iron ore mine.

10 Q. Sir, correct me if I'm wrong. Part of your responsibilities at

11 the iron ore mine was to make sure that there was drinking water at the

12 specific complex, correct, to be used by visitors, employees, et cetera?

13 A. Yes, yes.

14 Q. I'd like to focus your attention, if I can. In the period of

15 1992, did there come a time in 1992 that you recall, sir, that the iron

16 ore mine that you were employed ceased to work or stopped working?

17 A. That's right. The mine stopped working when Prijedor was

18 attacked.

19 Q. I know it's been a long time since 1992. I think we've

20 established that that date was approximately, or I think it is, May 30th,

21 1992. So just so that I'm clear on your testimony, is it your testimony

22 that the iron ore mine ceased working and ceased operations after May

23 30th, 1992?

24 A. That's right. The mine ceased working, and the mining section

25 stopped.

1 Q. Did you, sir, continue following May 30th, 1992 through

2 approximately August 5th, 1992 -- did you continue to go to the iron ore

3 mine because you were compelled to do so under a work obligation?

4 A. I stayed on in the mine. I was under work obligation. That was

5 my combat order.

6 Q. As you sit here, sir, do you recall if there were any changes to

7 the physical structures of the iron ore mine prior to May 30th, 1992 that

8 you would have personally observed after May 30th, 1992?

9 A. No, no change took place, nothing.

10 Q. Let me ask you with respect to the interior structures. Did you

11 notice, sir, whether or not there were any changes to any of the interior

12 structures that are located on or at the iron ore mine, meaning from prior

13 to May 30th, 1992 and subsequent to May 30th, 1992?

14 A. Nothing changed. Everything stayed the same.

15 Q. Sir, were there any external changes, modifications, or

16 alterations to the iron ore mine complex prior to May 30th and after May

17 30th, 1992?

18 A. There were no changes.

19 Q. Now, did you, to the best of your recollection and based upon your

20 personal experiences and observations -- when was the next time after the

21 iron ore mine complex stopped working that you were present at the iron

22 ore mine? Was it immediately on May 30th, a couple days later, a couple

23 weeks later? What was it?

24 A. Well, a few days later.

25 Q. Could you describe for us, sir, what it is that you saw and

1 observed those couple days after May 30th, 1992 when you found yourself at

2 the iron ore mine.

3 A. When I got there, after the 30th of May, I noticed that prisoners

4 had arrived in the Omarska mine.

5 Q. During that time period, sir -- and just so that we can

6 concentrate and focus on the time period. Since the iron ore mine ceased

7 working after the attack on Prijedor, and we could fix that as a date for

8 our purposes, May 30th, 1992, up until the time that the detainees in the

9 investigations centre were released, approximately August 5th or

10 thereabouts, in early August 1992. My question to you for that time

11 period, sir, is: What were your job duties and obligations from May 30th

12 through the beginning of August 1992 at the iron ore mine?

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's necessary to have a breakdown of

14 this long and winding question, because it may be confusing for the

15 witness. And for these purposes, is it your own recollection or is it on

16 the basis of the leading questions put to you by the Defence that in fact

17 you would fix the date for May 30th, 1992? That would be the date when

18 the iron ore mine ceased working after the attack on Prijedor. Is this

19 the correct date? Is this your own recollection, or could it be slightly

20 different?

21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I do not recollect the exact date.

22 It was late May. But I kept no record, so I can't know the exact date.

23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And then when exactly was it that you were

24 mobilised, that you were ordered to work in the iron ore mine?

25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, I worked there before. I

1 simply went on working there, except that I was issued with a document,

2 with a paper, which said "labour work obligation."

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just to be quite clear, because it seems to be

4 important from the outset to know about the exact time frame. It would be

5 incorrect if I would ask you did -- you were mobilised to work at the

6 Omarska camp in May -- already in May of 1992? Would this be incorrect or

7 correct?

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I worked there without interruption.

9 I just -- I simply went on working. And when people arrived to the

10 centre -- and later on I was issued with a paper, with a document that I

11 would not be sent to the front but that I should be on duty there and

12 maintain the electrical equipment.

13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think then we have a clear picture of that

14 what is your testimony on the time frame. I apologise for having

15 interrupted you, but I think from the outset it should be quite clear what

16 period of time we are exactly discussing.

17 Please proceed, Mr. Ostojic.

18 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you, Your Honour.

19 And if I may just for the record -- I'll refer to the witness's

20 prior transcript. I believe the Court has on page 7450. In response to a

21 question with respect to the issues that we're discussing -- the answer on

22 line 3 -- and again, for the record I'd like to read it -- from this

23 witness was, "I don't know the exact date. I don't remember. I know that

24 the mine was functioning when the war was going on in Croatia. As soon as

25 Prijedor was attacked, it stopped functioning." Lines 1 through 5.

1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right. Maybe --

2 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, it seems we've got different

3 transcripts. I'll speak with the Defence when we finish this evening,

4 because I've got a final transcript and it's not on that page.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. Therefore -- maybe the problems we have in

6 the moment emanate from the fact that we, in fact, have two different

7 transcripts. And I can't follow your; maybe you couldn't follow my

8 question, so --

9 MR. OSTOJIC: Perhaps, your -- and quite candidly I was just

10 trying to facilitate the process. And if it was a leading question, it

11 was as a result and reliance upon this. I'd be glad to show the Court

12 through the registrar or usher specifically that page and that transcript

13 relating to Mr. Cedo Vuleta. The Presiding Judge at that time was the

14 Honourable Judge Rodrigues. I'd be happy to tender that to the Court.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This is once again an agreed fact.

16 Could the usher perhaps help --

17 MR. OSTOJIC: I apologise for the markings on this page. This is

18 just a work --

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I hope they are in English that I can read them.

20 Yes. Apparently we have two different versions, and therefore I

21 apologise also for you. The line of questioning may have confused you,

22 but you know that you testified already in 2001 and we have two different

23 paginations. And my reference was to the question when you were mobilised

24 to work in the iron ore mine. But let's come back to this when we have

25 both the same copies of documents.

1 Please proceed.

2 MR. OSTOJIC: I will try. I'm trying to just focus the questions,

3 if I may, for this time period.

4 Q. And sir, forgive us for this interruption and thank you for your

5 patience.

6 From the time that you recall that you began your work

7 obligation at the iron ore mine, I think as you've stated, after the

8 attack on Prijedor, how long did you continue to work at the iron ore mine

9 under this work obligation that was issued to you?

10 A. I was under the work obligation until 1995, when Sanski Most was

11 attacked, when there was fighting in Sanski Most. That is when I was

12 taken away from there and I joined a unit.

13 Q. The detainees that were brought in the iron ore mine after the

14 attack on Prijedor that you personally saw, how long did they continue to

15 stay at the iron ore mine? From what period to what period?

16 A. The detainees stayed there -- as a matter of fact, they arrived

17 towards the end of May and stayed there until the end -- or until late

18 August. I cannot pinpoint the date or the day because I kept no record of

19 any such thing.

20 Q. So we'll work with your period.

21 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, counsel, please.

22 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

23 Q. If possible, we'll work with your period, the same time period

24 that you're referencing. Did you, sir, continue to work under your work

25 obligation at the iron ore mine on a regular and continual basis?

1 A. I went on working regularly, without any interruptions until 1995,

2 when I was called up. And then I stopped working.

3 Q. Can you share with us, once again, to the extent now that we have

4 clarified the time period, that is, up until the time the detainees

5 left -- during that time period, can you tell us what your job duties

6 obligations were? Meaning from late May, early August, through late --

7 strike that.

8 Let me restate the question, Mr. Vuleta. I know it's late, and I

9 apologise. Sir, can you describe for us your job duties and obligations

10 from the time that the detainees came to the iron ore mine up until the

11 time that they left the iron ore mine. What were your job duties and

12 responsibilities?

13 A. My duties and responsibilities were -- that is, my task number one

14 was the maintenance of the well, supplying us with the drinking water.

15 Then the lighting, the lighting around the buildings, the administrative

16 building, the dumping truck building. I was also -- worked with the

17 pumps, with the pumps pumping out, be it ground waters or surface waters

18 in the mine. Oh, and I forgot, and I also maintained the kitchen, or

19 rather, the equipment in the kitchen.

20 Q. Can you describe for us whether you worked an eight-hour shift -

21 again, focussing solely on that time period while the detainees were at

22 the iron ore mine - did you work an eight-hour shift, twelve-hour shift,

23 or twenty-four-hour shift?

24 A. I worked -- I would work 24 hours, and then have 48 hours off.

25 That is, I'd be on duty for one day and then have two days off.

1 Q. And during your job duties and obligations and responsibilities at

2 that time, did you ever leave the complex to perform some of your

3 functions in order to go, for example, to the well where the water pumps

4 and generators were operating?

5 A. Every day, day in, day out, it was my duty to go around the pumps,

6 pumping out surface waters. Then I was also under duty to see to the

7 kitchen equipment, because at that time there were frequent power cuts.

8 So that I had to switch on the generator, which was in the heating plant

9 near the kitchen, next to the separation plant.

10 Q. Can you tell me, during that time period, sir, to whom did you

11 report?

12 A. During that period of time, my superior was Mirko Babic.

13 Q. Also during this time period, sir, were there other employees of

14 the iron ore mine who had worked prior to May 30th at the iron ore mine

15 that were also under work obligation after May 30th, 1992?

16 A. Why, there were. Other people, people working with pumps, Branko

17 Rosic, Zdravko Bjelobrk. There were women, I mean cooks in the kitchen.

18 There were the guards, all the security men, mine security people. And

19 well...

20 Q. You briefly discussed the external and internal physical

21 structures of the iron ore mine as well as the external premises of the

22 iron ore mine. My question to you now is: Was there a change with

23 respect to people being present at the iron ore mine compared the period

24 prior to May 30th and after May 30th of 1992? Was there in addition to

25 the detainees other people who were at the complex?

1 A. I don't really understand the question.

2 Q. Okay. Let me try it a different way, with the Court's permission,

3 and of course the consent of the OTP. After May 30th - if I may ask a

4 leading question - after May 30th, was there any evidence of a police

5 force or policemen being present at the iron ore mine during the period of

6 time that the detainees were present?

7 A. Oh, yes, naturally. Why, there was police when the detainees came

8 and there was police there and the army troops were around. I mean, you

9 were talking about the mine. I didn't understand.

10 Q. In addition to the police that was present after May 30th, 1992,

11 was there any other group or entity that was present in addition to the

12 work -- the employees who were under work obligation, the detainees that

13 you mentioned, and the police that you mentioned just now? Was there any

14 other entity?

15 A. Yes. There was a unit belonging to a Banja Luka formation.

16 Q. And I think you mentioned in your answer also army troops;

17 correct? As reflected on line 17, page 31.

18 A. Yes.

19 MR. OSTOJIC: With the Court's permission, if the usher can show

20 the witness or place on the ELMO S15-2.

21 Just so the record is clear, where he mentions this is on page 71,

22 line 13, as opposed to -- as reflected in the transcript, line 17, page

23 31, for whatever it's worth.

24 Q. Sir, you're being shown a picture of a model that was used by the

25 OTP, I believe, of the iron ore mine or parts of the iron ore mine. Do

1 you recognise the picture that's on the ELMO identified as S15-2?

2 A. I do, yes.

3 Q. Does that picture and the model reflect the iron ore mine in its

4 entirety?

5 A. No. Here we see only the administrative building and the canteen

6 and the dump truck garage, and behind it is the workshop where bulldozers

7 were repaired and then the white house, where workers were usually roll

8 called or checked in. And then I also see the warehouse for oils,

9 lubricants, some fuel, I think. And then the water reservoir.

10 Q. In respect to the exhibit that's before you - although, I don't

11 believe that this is S15-2, but it's close to it - can you tell me

12 whether or not there were any posts, electrical posts or flower beds or

13 shrubs on or about the complex in 1992?

14 A. Around -- all around was public lighting.

15 Q. So there were the utility poles which illuminated light when a

16 switch was turned on; correct?

17 A. There were quite a number of lampposts. All around were the

18 lampposts.

19 Q. Was there anything else other than lampposts on or around this

20 area? We, I think believe or we can agree that there was grassy area or

21 field on or around that area. Was there an entrance and an exit to the

22 iron ore mine that you can show us as reflected on the picture that you're

23 looking at?

24 A. I don't understand. Entrance? What do you mean? The access to

25 these buildings, or ...?

1 Q. That's a perfectly appropriate response. My question was a bit

2 vague, and I apologise for that. In order to enter the complex, the iron

3 ore mine complex, how would you enter it? From which direction?

4 A. The mine was entered from east.

5 Q. And was there a road that led up through that entrance?

6 A. There was a road. The road came from east, from the direction of

7 Omarska.

8 Q. Now, you mentioned the cafeteria. To the best of your

9 recollection, during the time period that the detainees were at the iron

10 ore mine, can you tell us where this cafeteria is as reflected on this

11 exhibit before us.

12 A. It is here, in this area.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: Okay. I'm going to attempt, Your Honour, just for

14 the record to clarify those two points that the witness described. First

15 of all, the entrance the witness describes to the iron ore mine, I believe

16 that he indicated it was the area while facing the picture. There seems

17 to be a building to the right, and it's towards the bottom, viewing this

18 south, of the building approximately.

19 And next the witness indicated that the area which is the

20 cafeteria is directly perpendicular from where the entrance is and across

21 the building at its other end.

22 So if I may proceed.

23 Q. Can you describe for us that building that you're facing that's on

24 the right -- describe for us what during the spring and summer of 1992,

25 what was in this building?

1 A. Before the detainees arrived you mean? Is that what you want me

2 to explain?

3 Q. Yes.

4 A. Before the detainees arrived, this was the office, the

5 administrative building, this part here. Over there was the canteen, the

6 workers' canteen. Here was a garage for passenger vehicles. I mean, the

7 manager's and executives' who worked in the mine. Here we had lockers and

8 bathrooms or changing rooms and bathrooms. There was an entrance here, so

9 inside here was a passage that you took in order to get to the canteen

10 over there.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Maybe it could be of assistance for your

12 purposes if we made use of S15-19. Of course, it's for you to decide

13 whether based on this document it might be easier.

14 If the usher could show S15-19 to the Defence, please. Only that

15 we need not return to this.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: With -- absolutely, whatever the Court suggests.

17 But there is a purpose for which we'd like ultimately to show this exhibit

18 as well as S15-2.

19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: All right.

20 MR. OSTOJIC: I'd be more than happy to proceed in accordance with

21 the Court's instructions.

22 Yes. So please place -- yes.

23 Q. Mr. Witness, you now have before you another document, which is

24 marked S15-19. Can you describe for us what that is.

25 MR. OSTOJIC: If I can maybe assist the witness, Your Honour, with

1 all due respect.

2 Q. Mr. Vuleta, this, I believe, is another model prepared by the OTP

3 without the actual roof showing the inside of the --

4 A. This is the same building, but this is the ground plan.

5 Q. All right. It's actually an aerial view purportedly of the

6 various rooms within - just bear with me - within the structure that we

7 were talking about which appears on S15-1, the structure to the right

8 where the administration building or offices were and where the cafeteria

9 was. Correct?

10 A. Yes.

11 Q. Looking at this, to the best of your recollection, is this a fair

12 and accurate depiction of the breakdown of the rooms within that building

13 that we were just discussing, which is on the right side of S15-1?

14 A. This doesn't seem identical to what I remember the building as

15 looking like.

16 Q. Well, let's just --

17 A. There's a cafeteria here, but the entrance to the cafeteria is not

18 here, so I don't think this is a fair rendering of the building.

19 Q. Let me just -- if I can further assist you, Mr. Vuleta. If you

20 take Exhibit S15-1. And if you could just take --

21 MR. OSTOJIC: Is it S15-1 or 2, Mr. Usher?

22 Q. Okay. S15-2, the picture we have there is actually reversed from

23 the model that has the aerial view. Okay. So it's reversed. So just

24 take a look at the two again, and just help me identify the various

25 portions of the building. See, in S15-2, when you look at it on the

1 right, the administration building is the first thing that you see, and

2 then the cafeteria. Whereas, when you look at the exhibit before you,

3 S15-19, it's actually reversed. The cafeteria seems to be the first thing

4 that you look at at the bottom of the page and then going north you would

5 see the administration building, I believe.

6 Before you answer, I think we have a concern from our learned

7 colleague.

8 MS. SUTHERLAND: Your Honour, it may assist the witness if he can

9 see S15-18 first and then look at 15-19.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If the parties can agree on this procedure.

11 MR. OSTOJIC: I'd be happy to show the witness that exhibit, Your

12 Honour, as well.

13 Q. Mr. Vuleta, you have now before you yet another exhibit. Just --

14 just describe that exhibit to us. What is it that you see, sir? I'm

15 trying to move this along.

16 A. This here is the cafeteria and the administrative building. So

17 this is, I think, a fair rendering of the whole complex. And the image

18 that I was looking at before, that was sort of reversed.

19 Q. Okay. Taking that picture, sir, and with the Court's suggestion,

20 looking at the aerial view, is it still your testimony that the aerial

21 view photograph does not accurately depict the inside rooms as they

22 existed in the spring and summer of 1992?

23 A. This image here, this model, does not reflect what the building is

24 really like, or the breakdown of the rooms. This is where the cafeteria

25 was and --

1 Q. If you could show us --

2 MR. OSTOJIC: If I can just move along.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: We should have it on the transcript. The

4 witness is referring at this moment to Exhibit number S15 --

5 MR. OSTOJIC: -19.

6 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: -19.

7 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. If I can -- would the Court just like me to

8 describe that it's the northern portion that the witness was indicating in

9 his last answer, and indicating basically that in the centre of that

10 northern section of the aerial view of the photograph on Exhibit S15-19.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: When we just have -- I apologise. But that we

12 do not need to come back to this -- all these pictures. May I ask you:

13 Where was the entrance to this building? Can you identify this on this

14 document?

15 MR. OSTOJIC: Yes. On the document that's on the ELMO, S15-19.

16 Correct, Your Honour?

17 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Where it reads -- could we please zoom a little

18 bit in. I can't read the number of -- in the area where there is room

19 number -- is it 36 or 26? Unfortunately I can't read it. I should have

20 stronger glasses.

21 To the left-hand side. It should -- 26. Is it correct, 26, 27

22 that there was the entrance? Correct?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. This -- I don't seem to

24 understand this model that I'm looking at. There is no corridor here.

25 This is all closed. There are no doors, and there should be a corridor

1 here to walk through and then you proceed towards the cafeteria and then

2 up to the first floor.

3 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: You are speaking about a cafeteria. This was a

4 cafeteria that was used by the inmates, or was it for the purposes of

5 staff members, the cafeteria?

6 MR. OSTOJIC: I think, Mr. Vuleta, that was directed to you, that

7 question. So if you could just answer the Court's question.

8 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The entrance was here, and then you

9 came this way, and this is where the cafeteria was. But this is a reverse

10 image. So that's why I'm confused.

11 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In fact, maybe it can be of assistance to show

12 the witness document S15-19 in addition.

13 MR. OSTOJIC: I just -- I just think that it seems that we're

14 regressing. Just so that we're clear -- if I may, Your Honour.

15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Of course.

16 MR. OSTOJIC: Just to indicate for the record where this witness

17 on this S16-19 aerial photograph, where he indicated was the entrance.

18 And that, if I may, he indicated it was at or approximately what is marked

19 as -- it's difficult to read, but it's the centre right-hand side of the

20 picture, which has a pink slip showing "A" and then a number that we can't

21 see unless it's zoomed further.

22 It looks like it's approximately in the area that the witness

23 identified is the area marked as A18, and to the left, looking at --

24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] This entrance. This.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: [Microphone not activated]

1 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone for the Presiding Judge, please.

2 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And Madam Registrar just found out

3 that it may in fact be of assistance to show the witness S15-19 as well?

4 THE REGISTRAR: -3, Your Honour.

5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: In addition to the others.

6 MR. OSTOJIC: May I put the question to the witness, Your Honour?

7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Of course. Of course.

8 MR. OSTOJIC: Thank you.

9 Q. Sir, now you have before you an exhibit that's identified as

10 S15-3, I believe. Can you describe first for us what that picture

11 purports to be.

12 A. Here you can see the actual -- the faithful reflection of the

13 cafeteria with the administrative building. This is exactly where the

14 entrance was, but it wasn't like that in the other image. This is where

15 you came in. And here were the offices of the administration. This is

16 where the garage was, and this part here was the cafeteria. And I think

17 this very faithfully reflects what the building was actually like.

18 Q. Thank you for your assistance.

19 Before we break for the evening, the Court did, I believe, ask you

20 a question that we did not get a response to. And that is, sir: With

21 respect to the cafeteria that you mentioned and identified, during the

22 spring and summer of 1992 was that, sir, the cafeteria where the detainees

23 were brought to eat as well as the workers at the iron ore mine ate?

24 A. Will you please help me along with this. The detainees were not

25 brought here before the end of May. Only the employees, the worker, were

1 actually there.

2 Q. Okay. I'll break it down. Prior to May 30th, 1992, was that the

3 cafeteria that the regular employees at the iron ore mine would come in

4 and sit and eat during their regular lunch breaks or during their break

5 periods?

6 A. Yes, yes, yes.

7 Q. After approximately May 30th, 1992, while the detainees were at

8 the iron ore mine, do you, sir, know where those detainees would eat?

9 A. The detainees ate in the same cafeteria.

10 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so the record is clear, the witness pointed to

11 the area where he previously identified as the cafeteria on Exhibit S15-3.

12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Just to conclude this, was there any special

13 room tailor-made for staff members, investigators, or other personnel,

14 maybe for the purposes of breakfast or lunch or dinner only?

15 MR. OSTOJIC: I believe, witness --

16 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It was my question now. If I may ask you, was

17 there any additional room especially -- during this period of time

18 especially for staff members, investigators, typists, secretaries, where

19 they would take breakfast, lunch, or dinner?

20 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I understand your question. There

21 was yet another restaurant with the kitchen attached to it near the

22 separation, 2 kilometres to the east, where all the food was prepared.

23 This cafeteria, ready and prepared food was brought here and then it was

24 distributed.

25 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: My question was: In that same building we can

1 see now on our computer, in this same building was there another room for

2 having lunch, breakfast, or dinner for members of the staff, for

3 investigators, for typists, or whatever persons working there?

4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know. I didn't really enter

5 those buildings very often, or I didn't spend much time where the offices

6 of the investigators and the typists were. It's possible that they do

7 have a room upstairs somewhere which they used to eat in, but I know that

8 there was this restaurant with the kitchen, and I know that the

9 investigators usually went there to take their lunch.

10 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it's appropriate to have the break now.

11 The trial stays adjourned until tomorrow. But before we take the

12 break, let me kindly ask you not to contact in the meantime one of the

13 parties, be it the Prosecution, be it the Defence, or Judges, or whenever

14 you meet another maybe witness in your hotel. Please don't discuss issues

15 related to your own testimony. Thank you for your understanding.

16 The trial stays adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at quarter past

17 2.00.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 7.01 p.m.,

19 to be reconvened on Friday, the 31st day of

20 January, 2003, at 2.15 p.m.

21

22

23

24

25