1 Tuesday, 4 February 2003
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Good morning to everybody. Please be seated.
6 Let us hear the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning. This is Case Number IT-97-24-T, the
8 Prosecutor versus Milomir Stakic.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the appearances, please.
10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Good morning, Your Honours. Nicholas Koumjian and
11 Ruth Karper for the Prosecution.
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Thank you. And the Defence.
13 MR. LUKIC: Good morning, Your Honour. Branko Lukic, John
14 Ostojic, and Danilo Cirkovic for the Defence.
15 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Let me start by saying this: I have the
16 impression there are a number of problems to be resolved as soon as
17 possible. They are all together small issues, but the addition of these
18 small issues may amount to a mountain. And before this is the case, I
19 think it's absolutely necessary to have a meeting how to proceed, taking
20 into account the problems the parties have for the ongoing case. And
21 therefore, I would ask the parties whether it would be possible for them
22 to participate in a 65 ter (i) meeting this afternoon as from 5.00. Let
23 me know after the first break whether this would be appropriate or would
24 disturb your plans for today.
25 What we, no doubt, have to discuss in open court, and I mentioned
1 this yesterday, is the defendant's motion for testimony by videoconference
2 related to five witnesses. May I ask the Prosecution to comment on this.
3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, we did not oppose the motion based
4 upon the reasons, the cause, given by the Defence. But we share the
5 Court's view that there are disadvantages to our own case, this is
6 disadvantages to cross-examining via videolink. Our preference would be
7 to do the deposition option that was raised if that is possible.
8 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Related to all the five witnesses.
9 Anything to be added by the Defence?
10 MR. OSTOJIC: Good morning, Your Honours. The only request we
11 make is that the Court keep cognizant of the economies that would be
12 warranted by having a deposition taken, and we thought this would be the
13 best avenue proceeding with the videolink as we have with OTP witnesses,
14 and we're taken aback a little bit that the OTP would like to have a
15 different standard applied when it comes to Defence witnesses. We think
16 the cross-examination, if any, would be consistent, as it was with our
17 presentation during their case, through videolink, through live testimony,
18 or through deposition.
19 This Court has insisted on numerous occasions to raise the issue
20 of economies of scale, equality of arms. And when you view this case in
21 hindsight, we ask in its totality that we see that each request made by
22 the OTP was reasonably and justifiably accepted by the Defence. On the
23 other hand, when those same requests were made, there has always been some
24 provisos or exceptions, and not reasonably accepted by the OTP.
25 We believe that the Court will, in determining whether this
1 proceeds by way of videolink or deposition, take into account the exact
2 same factors that they utilise when granting the OTP's request. We still
3 for the totality of the ICTY and this Tribunal that these five witnesses
4 should proceed via videolink testimony and that there's no prejudice
5 whatsoever to the OTP by cross-examining them as we have through the
6 procedure outlined in the Rules.
7 MR. KOUMJIAN: May I just briefly respond: The Defence for the
8 witness that was used videolink during the Prosecution case did not
9 request a deposition. So it's not the case where one was denied for the
10 Defence and granted for the Prosecution. Furthermore, that was a witness,
11 as Your Honours I believe recall, who was basically testifying about being
12 a victim and witnessing crimes. It did not go to issues of the conduct of
13 the accused as these witnesses would. But again, I indicated in the
14 beginning, we do not oppose the motion but our preference is for
15 deposition. We think it will serve all parties better if that is
16 logistically possible.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: Just briefly so the record is clear, Witness O who
18 testified by way of videolink could have been and should have been under
19 what counsel himself states perhaps a 92 bis witness. Instead, after the
20 direct examination, the OTP through Ms. Ann Sutherland decided to go far
21 afield from what the parametres of that witness's statements were to try
22 to extract opinion testimony as it relates to our client, Dr. Stakic. The
23 Court allowed an answer. It was favourable to the Defence. Then
24 questioning immediately ceased.
25 The Defence felt since she gave, in our view, favourable testimony
1 that there was no need to cross-examination -- to conduct
2 cross-examination of the witness at that time. We felt at that time, as
3 we did with their 19 92-bis witnesses that the economies should always be
4 viewed and placed on a balanced scale. And therefore, we did not insist
5 that the witness be brought or that we proceed by way of deposition, just
6 so that the record is clear.
7 I think counsel has a right and the Rules provide clearly that the
8 avenues for cross-examination could be and shall be done either through
9 viva voce or through videolink setup. And we think we should proceed in
10 that manner. We are welcome to go and we are happy to go on the field,
11 all of us, and spend a week to ten days there in order to conduct these
12 five depositions if that's the Court's ruling.
13 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The Court will decide on this issue as soon as
14 possible and as soon as practicable.
15 I would appreciate if I could know after the first break if such a
16 65 ter conference can be conferred this evening at 5.00 because also from
17 this short intervention, it transpires that there are a number of problems
18 that should be resolved immediately. But the place where to do it is, in
19 fact, a 65 ter (i) conference and not open court.
20 May I ask the usher, then, to please escort our witness --
21 [The witness entered court]
22 MR. OSTOJIC: Pardon me, Your Honour, before the usher does. I
23 think we have another issue.
24 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think it takes time. Continue.
25 MR. OSTOJIC: We did ask to be heard beforehand in connection with
1 the time schedule that the Court has placed on the Defence and the undue
2 burden that it has shifted upon the Defence. Our client has once again
3 informed us that he is not feeling well, that he is under an enormous
4 amount of stress and pressure because of the Court's schedule. With all
5 due respect, we are in the process of preparing a written application to
6 outline clearly and plainly for the Court how the schedule has changed
7 over the last two and a half months from the initial scheduling order to
8 the revised scheduling order, and we would like respectfully to point out
9 to the Court that there is no other case that's currently pending that has
10 the schedule that has been imposed upon us. Similarly, in our written
11 application, we will show for the Court --
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I think you need not to go into details. This
13 is the purpose of why I think it's necessary to confer in the 65 ter
14 meeting, and there it's the place to discuss these issues.
15 MR. OSTOJIC: I can tell the Court now without waiting for a
16 break, we are not available at 5.00. We have to meet with witnesses. And
17 just so that the Court understands and has an appreciation for it, we meet
18 with these witnesses until wee hours of the evening in order to prepare
19 them. We do not have the opportunity, since we don't have any breaks, to
20 meet with them in the field with the counsel and then to have any
21 consultation with our client in connection with that. So it's unfortunate
22 that we will not be able to meet at 5.00.
23 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: What about Thursday at 5.00? You are aware that
24 on Friday, we are not sitting the so-called, emphasise the so-called
25 entire day, because the Defence should be aware that the sitting hours we
1 are practicing now, this has been -- had been the sitting hours during the
2 last eight hours of the existence of this Tribunal. And there's nothing
3 special with this. So taking into account that Friday morning will be
4 available for your necessary discussions with both witness and your
5 client, would be Thursday afternoon?
6 MR. OSTOJIC: Judge, with all due respect -- with all due respect,
7 I think it's a very, very critical issue that it cannot wait until
8 Thursday. But I also think that the schedule does not permit us. As the
9 Court knows, we do not start at 9.00 perhaps on Friday, but I believe at
10 10.30 if my recollection serves me correctly. It does not give us the
11 adequate time --
12 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: It's not correct. We are starting on Friday at
14 MR. OSTOJIC: Your Honour, my client has insisted that I apply to
15 the Court - and I hesitate to do so with the witness being present here -
16 to make a specific application with respect to his physical condition and
17 his specific concerns. We don't think that it should be delayed, and we
18 should be heard on this issue immediately.
19 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Yes. What you can't say on the one hand side,
20 you are not prepared to participate in the meeting; on the other hand,
21 tell me Thursday would be too late.
22 MR. OSTOJIC: I'd like to be heard on the issue today, now. I'd
23 like to be heard on the issue now. I asked the Court representatives that
24 we have specifically three issues to raise with the Court. As the
25 practice has been in the last seven, eight years, that's the procedure.
1 I've asked for that. And I was under the apparently misimpression that
2 the Court was advised that we have those issues to raise. We do not have
3 a recourse other than through --
4 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: And the clear ruling was that this has to be
5 done in the framework of a 65 ter (i) conference, and not in open Court.
6 And I will ask you to give me as soon as possible a possible date for a 65
7 ter (i) meeting. I'm available whenever you want.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: I'm available right now, Your Honour.
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No. We have to hear the witness. And as you
10 know, to hear witnesses has always priority because of the time they spent
11 in The Hague and offering their free time in order to bring us closer to
12 the truth. And therefore, I don't want to waste any more time at this
13 point in time on this question. I know it's important for you. It's
14 important first of all for Dr. Stakic himself. But we can't use the
15 limited time available in this courtroom for these purposes. Therefore,
16 the Rules provide another possibility, and we have to take this.
17 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may just for the record, Your Honour, with all
18 due respect to the witness, this witness or any witness in all due respect
19 does not supersede my client's rights under the Rules of Detention or the
20 Rules prescribed by the ICTY.
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: If you once again would have listened carefully
22 and would review the transcript, then you would come to the same
23 conclusion without these unnecessary comments, to put it this way,
24 Mr. Ostojic.
25 May we now proceed. Mr. Lukic, the floor is yours.
1 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour.
2 WITNESS: OSTOJA MARJANOVIC [Resumed]
3 [Witness answered through interpreter]
4 Examined by Mr. Lukic: [Continued]
5 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Marjanovic.
6 A. Good morning.
7 Q. Have you had a good rest?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. May we continue reading?
10 A. Yes.
11 MR. LUKIC: I would like the usher to deliver to the witness four
12 of our documents marked with the 65 ter numbers 262 through 265, please.
13 Can you please place on the ELMO the Document Number 262, please.
14 And give the witness the B/C/S version.
15 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Marjanovic, we haven't had time to go through these
17 documents. I know that in the period in question, you were not the
18 managing director in the Ljubija iron ore mine. But I think that when you
19 see the document, you will understand what it's about.
20 Would you please read out the title of the document, tell us who
21 signed the document, and tell us whether you know that this kind of water
22 supply system existed on your premises in Omarska.
23 A. I can comment on this document in view of the fact that I was the
24 leader of the project of the construction of the Omarska mine from 1974 to
25 1979. When the facilities were being built, one of the issues was how to
1 ensure potable water supplies, especially in the canteen, but also in the
2 rest of the plant. The area is an iron ore mine, and for this reason, the
3 wells on the farms, when we checked the water, had a high content of
4 Fe2O3, also MnO, manganese oxide, and all of this is detrimental to
5 health. An analysis was made of the water, and a system was made to
6 design the well large enough to meet the needs of the employees in the
8 I must point out that in one shift, when the mine was being
9 exploited, there were over 350 employees working at any one time. Later
10 on, this was constructed -- the plant was constructed, and we had to have
11 devices to remove manganese and also Fe2O3. There was a strict quality
12 control of the water, and for this reason, this document was drawn up in
13 March 1979. And the title of the document is "operating instructions for
14 the potable water plant of the Omarska mine."
15 The document discusses technical exploitation --
16 Q. Just a moment, please. Would you please read the date once again
17 when this project was drawn up.
18 A. March 1987.
19 Q. Thank you.
20 A. The operating instructions refer to several areas, one is the pump
21 enabling the water to circulate through the pipes. Then there are
22 instructions about the electrical power for these pumps, and also a part
23 dealing with the chemical substances used to remove iron and manganese.
24 Control over the plant was performed by the safety and health protection
25 service which employed engineers of various kinds, a hydrogeologist and
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 other kinds of engineers.
2 Sometimes it happened that due to negligence, a large amount of
3 harmful substances turned up in the water, and then a technical
4 intervention had to be made. The people who controlled the water drew up
5 records which were delivered to the managing director or the technical
6 director of Omarska who then had to take appropriate measures.
7 When the Omarska mine was to start up, the institutions of the
8 ministry in charge of energy and mining in Bosnia and Herzegovina sent
9 certain commissions which comprised a sufficient number of experts to
10 approve the use of a certain plant, or they would have comments. They
11 would make remarks, and then the deficiencies would have to be removed
12 before the plant could be started up. At the end of the document, it
13 says: "Omarska, March 1987, instructions approved by the service for
14 protection at work, engineer Franjo Galunic, and also technical director
15 of Omarska, Zdenko Ceraj, graduate mining engineer."
16 Q. Can you tell us the ethnic background of these two people?
17 A. Yes, I can. They are both Croats.
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: The next available number would be D66.
19 Correct? Then this document is provisionally marked D66A and B
21 MR. LUKIC: Could the usher be so kind and show the witness the
22 next document marked with our 65 ter number 263, please.
23 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Marjanovic, can you explain this document
24 briefly, as you have explained the previous one.
25 A. Yes, yes, I can explain it. But I have to mention that I made a
1 mistake just a moment ago because I mentioned the republican ministry for
2 energy and mining. At the time, it was called the republican committee
3 for energy and mining. That was the mistake I made.
4 I mentioned that a commission was set up by the committee for
5 energy and mining of the socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
6 the document contains the number and the date of issue, and the decision
7 refers -- or rather, the decision is to the effect that the well and the
8 potable water supply system can be put into operation. The signature is
9 the assistant president of the republican committee for energy and
10 industry. At the time, this was Dr. Safet Cicic, an acquaintance of mine.
11 If you want to know his ethnic background, I think you do, he is a
13 Q. Thank you.
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This would be D67A, B respectively.
15 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. The next document would be
16 the document marked with our 65 ter number 264.
17 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Marjanovic, this document is short. Would
18 you please read it and explain it to us, please.
19 A. "DP, RJR, Ljubija/Prijedor." DP means socially owned enterprise.
20 "Workplace safety service, Prijedor. The 122nd of November, 1990.
22 Minutes: "On the 7th of November, 1990, water samples for
23 bacteriological analysis were taken. The water is bacteriologically
24 satisfactory and correspond to the regulations on potable water quality.
25 "On that occasion, the 7th of November, 1990, I visited the source
1 of the local waterworks of the economic unit of the Omarska mine and found
2 the following situation:
3 "Neither prechlorination nor final chlorination are functioning.
4 Iron and manganese elimination from potable water are not being
5 performed. There is no disinfecting of water because there is no
6 chlorination. Of all the installed water treatment equipment, only the
7 sand filters are functioning. The water disinfection equipment must be
8 made operational as we can never know -- as we can never know when
9 secondary water pollution may occur with all the accompanying health and
10 legal problems." And as miners says, it says "Good Luck. Workplace
11 safety service, Faruk Cerimagic, graduate engineer of technology." And
12 his signature follows. The ethnic affiliation of Mr. Cerimagic, an
13 acquaintance of mine, is a Muslim.
14 Q. Do you know whether Mr. Cerimagic's demands were met?
15 A. I can assume that this was mandatory. That this had to be
16 complied with because there were rigorous sanctions involved in the mine.
17 A large number of people used this water, so I am sure that there must
18 have been an intervention following this. But I can't guarantee this
19 because I have no personal knowledge of it. I wasn't there.
20 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This document would be marked provisionally as
21 D68A and B correspondingly.
22 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. There is one document left referring to this area. And the 65 ter
24 number is 265. We don't have a translation for this document. We
25 received it, along with the others, from the OTP.
1 Mr. Marjanovic, it will be a bit harder to read out this document
2 because the end is not legible. But I ask you to try and tell us what its
3 contents are.
4 A. Excuse me. "The iron ore -- the Ljubija/Prijedor mine, the
5 service for protection at work, number 86/90, Prijedor, 15th of June,
7 "Omarska mine economic unit.
8 "Omarska. To the attention of Branko Micic, graduate mining
10 "Please find enclosed bacteriological water from your water supply
11 system. The analyses are negative, and the findings, I assume that it's
12 probably in accordance with the regulations for potable water, Official
13 Gazette of the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia 33/87. I
14 assume that's what it is. The analyses are made at the source in the wet
15 area and in the canteen once a month. Good luck.
16 "Technologist, Faruk Cerimagic, graduate engineer and head of the
17 service for protection at work. Smail Zahirovic, graduate engineer of
19 Both are these are Muslims. And it says: "Deliver one copy to
20 the addressee and one copy to the archives."
21 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: This document would be provisionally marked
22 D69B. And it should be mentioned that a provisional translation can be
23 found on the 12th and 13th page of today's transcript.
24 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
25 Q. Let me just ask you, is it evident from this document that on the
1 15th of June, 1990, although part of the document is missing, that it can
2 be concluded that the water was potable?
3 A. Yes, assuming that they complied with what was previously found
4 about the deficiencies in the water supply system for the Omarska mine.
5 Q. I would like to cover a different area now and ask you if you know
6 the following: As you took part in the work of the bodies of municipal
7 administration, do you know respectively the positions of the president of
8 the Municipal Assembly, what are the president of the Municipal Assembly's
10 MR. KOUMJIAN: Sorry. I object. It's vague as to time.
11 MR. LUKIC: [Interpretation]
12 Q. Can you please answer what the tasks of the president of the
13 Municipal Assembly are and --
14 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: May you please wait until the Trial Chamber has
15 decided. I'm surprised what's happening on this side of the Defence
16 during the last days.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Following deliberations, objection sustained.
19 MR. LUKIC: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll restate the question.
20 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Marjanovic, do you know what the tasks and
21 functions were of the president of the Municipal Assembly of Prijedor in
22 the period of time of 1991 and 1992?
23 A. I was never myself the president of the Municipal Assembly
24 obviously, but the statute of the Municipal Assembly contains clear
25 regulations governing his work in quite a specific manner. So as I had to
1 be familiar with the statute, I think I am to a certain extent qualified
2 to comment on the duties and tasks of the president. I would even go as
3 far as to say that the competencies and authorities from the 1980s, that
4 the president had in the 1980s, and those that he had in the 1990s are
5 almost the same, almost identical.
6 I think the same statute was kept to the end, to the very end of
7 the war. I think it may have been changed but only recently, only very
8 recently. I think what needs to be pointed out is that the president of
9 the Municipal Assembly is elected at a session of the assembly. Usually,
10 it has to be a prominent citizen highly regarded, both as a man and as a
11 humanitarian person. A person, a citizen with certain merits.
12 According to the statute, the president presides over the
13 assembly -- over the sessions of the Municipal Assembly when these
14 sessions are held. He sets the date for the sessions of the assembly, and
15 he convenes the sessions; however, the agenda discussed at the assembly is
16 drafted and proposed by the Executive Board, the Executive Board
17 representing executive authority. The Executive Board demands from the
18 president of the Municipal Assembly that the Municipal Assembly or the
19 Municipality discuss a number of issues, usually such issues as taxes,
20 revenues, and so on and so forth.
21 During the assembly's work, or before the work of the assembly
22 begins, the agenda is debated. And the deputies choose to either adopt or
23 reject certain items placed on the agenda following which the items of the
24 accepted agenda are debated during the session by deputies. Documents are
25 drafted following the debates, the assembly debates, and the documents
1 that result from that are decisions of the Municipal Assembly which are
2 then forwarded to the Executive Board for implementation.
3 The task of the president of the Municipal Assembly is to mediate
4 and to work with the technical services of the Municipal Assembly which,
5 if my memory serves me well, is managed and controlled by the secretary of
6 the municipality. I think this more or less comprises the essential tasks
7 of the president of the Municipal Assembly.
8 Q. During the time the Crisis Staff existed, did you ever have the
9 impression that the Executive Board was functioning, operating, at the
10 same time? And can you please explain where the secretaries of the
11 secretariat were sitting, in their own offices or perhaps in a different
13 A. Your question about the operation of the Executive Board, whether
14 it was working, I can't give you an answer because I don't know if they
15 had any meetings. But all the secretaries, that is, most of the
16 secretaries that I used to see stayed in their offices and performed their
17 duties, the duties of their respective secretariats.
18 I myself went to see the secretary for the economy. I think it
19 was Ranko Travar. In a manner of speaking, he was my superior minister in
20 the municipality. So that was the reason why we had contacts throughout
21 that period.
22 Q. Let us please return to the department of your own enterprise in
23 Omarska, at the time when an investigation centre was operating there. In
24 that period of time, who was in charge of supplying goods, fuel, for
25 example, to that particular section of the enterprise? Was it done
1 through your own offices, if you could please explain that? What did you
2 have up there? Who was using the services of the petrol station?
3 A. I can't tell you exactly how this was happening, because that was
4 completely cut off at that time. But I know that there was a certain
5 amount left behind in the storage rooms of the petrol station. Petrol
6 stations were own by the Energopetrol company, a state-owned company,
7 distributing petrol and oil derivatives. I may be wrong, but I think the
8 quantities we are talking about are quite considerable, I think about
9 30 tonnes.
10 In earlier times, the petrol station was run by people from the
11 iron ore mine in Omarska. There were people there who issued petrol with
12 clear instructions to document, register, the exact number of vehicles
13 issued petrol, the name of the driver. And it was mandatory to take the
14 driver's signature and the specified quantity of petrol taken. Throughout
15 the period when the investigation centre was operating, I have no
16 information concerning that, nor was I ever informed by anyone. I'm not
17 sure if it was the people who were working there informing the managing
18 director of the Omarska iron ore mine, Dusko Vlacina. I'm not sure they
19 did inform him.
20 Q. Do you know what the trucks that were owned by your company in
21 Omarska were being used for?
22 A. I must try to draw a distinction here for my own benefit. The
23 Ljubija iron ore mine owns a considerable number of different vehicles,
24 small trucks with different capacities between 1 or 2 tonnes, and 70
25 tonnes. The range is as wide as that. However, speaking of Omarska, the
1 enterprise owns a wide range of different vehicles. I will try to
2 enumerate them for you so you know what they are used for.
3 The Caterpillar, the dumpers with 75-tonne capacity for
4 transporting the ore. We had a vehicle for transporting explosives, the
5 capacity 4 and a half tonnes. It was exclusively used for taking the
6 explosives used during mining from Ljubija to the mine, to the pit
7 itself. There were maintenance vehicles there, reparation and
8 maintenance. TAM vehicles, that was the make of the vehicle. We used to
9 refer to them as TAMici. They were between 1.500 and 2.000 kilograms
10 capacity. They had what we used to call Trambus Kabina. It was sort of a
11 long cab which apart from the driver seats perhaps four, five, or up to
12 even six people. The body of the vehicle itself, certain spare parts
13 could be attached to it, and diggers could be towed by this type of
14 vehicle. That's what these special vehicles and machines are used for.
15 They are used as tow vehicles for towing or tugging both the goods and
16 transporting the people who worked there.
17 Excuse me, if I may just add something: There were three
18 different production mines. The eastern mine, the southern mine, and
19 Omarska itself. Those were more or less the same production mines with
20 more or less the same equipment. Maybe the number of equipment differed
21 from one to the other.
22 Q. For the sake of the transcript, in order to clarify, did you say
23 southern mines or central mines?
24 A. If I say southern, I may have made a mistake. Central mines
25 Ljubija. We call them central because all the other production mines
1 developed from that central, original one, the main production mine. So
2 central, eastern, and Omarska.
3 Q. So in the summer of 1992, did you know what the trucks at the mine
4 were being used for? Did anyone inform you about that?
5 A. No. No one provided any kind of information to me. I don't know
6 what those trucks were being used for. I can only assume. The whole
7 production line in the depth of the Omarska excavation mine had to be kept
8 in operation constantly as at that time, there was not sufficient
9 electricity. I suppose maintenance workers there had to -- had to
10 redirect a certain amount of electricity to the generator supplying
11 electricity for the mine. So I suppose they were using some of the
12 vehicles to go to the pit, to the excavation mine and perform those tasks.
13 Q. Did you, or actually your company, around Tomasica and Omarska,
14 were you ever robbed around spring, summer, or autumn of 1992?
15 A. Yes. I will try to tell you exactly what happened. Please try to
16 understand that perhaps I'm not able to provide very precise time
17 coordinates. But I know that the 6th Sana Brigade, in the course of their
18 military operations, reached the central mine, and they wreaked havoc
19 there, useless havoc.
20 They took away all the glue supplies, which is of no use to anyone
21 outside the iron ore mine itself. They took some of our tools and
22 equipment, which are completely useless for any tasks outside the mine.
23 They fired shots at water tanks and at the electricity station. I suppose
24 they were taking away oil from there. They took whatever they could lay
25 their hands on. I don't think that they meant to use these things for the
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 work of their unit. I think it was pure hubris. The same unit was
2 staying in the area of the eastern mines towards the end of the war where
3 again they caused an enormous amount of damage. They destroyed the lab,
4 the laboratory which performed analysis of the iron ore quality, the iron
5 ore we were producing.
6 In Omarska, several robberies of private character took place, of
7 private nature. It did happen on certain occasions that armed groups
8 consisting of two or three people would force guards, security guards, to
9 lie down. They would then take keys from them, and they would then go
10 into storage rooms and simply loot the storage rooms, take away things and
11 goods from the storage rooms. They took 12 sets of "zol" keys. Each of
12 them is worth $4.000. They stripped the electricity poles of the 220 volt
13 electricity system part of the structure, which caused two of the poles to
14 collapse. They used this equipment to make baskets, containers, for their
16 At a later stage, in 1996, I issued an announcement to the
17 citizens of Omarska saying that whoever brings back the sets of stolen
18 keys would be amply rewarded and explaining that the keys were otherwise
19 useless to them. I had no one to complain to about the behaviour and
20 actions of the 6th Sana Brigade. There was no one to complain to, nor
21 would I have been given any attention if I had. I did send written
22 reports to the public security centre of the MUP in Prijedor, but they
23 took no measures whatsoever in this specific case. In order to explain
24 the whole context, the overall situation, they were quite eager, they
25 seemed quite eager when they accused me and my colleagues of having sold
1 parts of the equipment off to Serbia.
2 Simo Drljaca sent over two inspectors who went to Ruma, Kolubara,
3 the Neksic iron factory investigating what we had allegedly sold them, it
4 was scrap iron. Four months later, the inspectors came to see me. Their
5 eyes were full of tears. They said: "Ostoja, please, please admit to
6 something because if you don't admit to anything we will be fired if we
7 don't find anything." But they didn't find anything. I think this very
8 amply illustrates the modus operandi of those people.
9 Q. Would you please repeat whose work this illustrates.
10 A. The work of Mr. Simo Drljaca who was at the head of the MUP.
11 Q. After the police took over the Omarska mine complex, do you know
12 who operated the petrol pump?
13 A. No, I don't. I don't know. And to be quite honest, I didn't know
14 fully even before that. Those were people who worked there. The foreman
15 designated them, and they had the director of Omarska, and then they had
16 the foremen, and they designated the people.
17 Q. I would also like to ask you about the kitchen, preparing the food
18 which was near the Separacija. Do you know who ran the kitchen at the
20 A. No, I don't. Previously, this was done by a canteen service which
21 delivered food at the level of the whole company, and they had cooks who
22 prepared the food. However, in this period, I have no information nor did
23 anybody inform me, nor was I able to know who did this and how they
25 Q. You spoke of the guards at the entrance to the buildings. Who
1 organised the guards and who was there with you in front of your building?
2 A. After the events at the end of May, and the attack on Prijedor on
3 the 30th of May, there was a situation of chaos. One didn't know where
4 danger might be coming from. And people organised themselves on their own
5 initiative and kept watch at their entrances. They even put iron bars on
6 their front doors. I also kept watch.
7 On several occasions, Ivo Komljenovic kept watch with me. We have
8 already mentioned him. He's a Croat. And then there was Minka Cehajic, a
9 lady who was a doctor and who lived in the same entranceway, and she was
10 there with us. The purpose of this guard duty was for us to be able to
11 raise the alarm if anything happened. We would chat and drink coffee
12 throughout the night. And fortunately, at the entrance to our part of the
13 building, nothing ever happened.
14 Q. We have already mentioned Mr. Ivo Komljenovic. Now you have
15 mentioned him again. Would you please explain to us how he left Prijedor,
16 who helped him, and why he left.
17 A. Ivo Komljenovic was a neighbour of mine, a mining engineer. He
18 was the technical director of Nemetal. I think we looked at the document
19 yesterday where he signed for the employees, the work force. He had two
20 small children and a wife. We were on visiting terms.
21 In 1992, in June or July and further on, there was no production.
22 The situation did not promise anything good. You couldn't expect any
23 payments of salaries because I have already said, we were not able to
24 collect the payments for everything we had exported to Zenica. He, I
25 think, had two or three brothers in Germany, and his wife also had
1 relatives there. He contacted them, and they sent him documents. I think
2 the documents arrived through Caritas, the charity organisation.
3 When he received the documents, he asked me whether he should go.
4 I couldn't tell him. I said: "If I tell you to go and this turns out not
5 to be a good decision, I will be to blame for this. If I tell you to stay
6 and things don't turn out well, again, I will be the one to blame." I
7 told him he should decide for himself. And he made up his mind. He asked
8 me to help him. I transported him and his family. We used his car and
9 another car as far as Dvorna Uni, and he went to Vojnic, and after that,
10 he went on towards Croatia.
11 Q. Does Mr. Komljenovic ever contact you?
12 A. Yes. He contacted me from Wiesbaden during the war. He now lives
13 in Zagreb. He is back from Germany, and he visited Prijedor a few times
14 from Zagreb. I didn't know that his wife has said a lot of bad things
15 about me, but this is of no interest now.
16 Q. In order to go from Prijedor toward Croatia, did these people have
17 to have passes?
18 A. They were supposed to have passes. At the time, checkpoints were
19 set up in places where they were needed and also where they were not
20 needed. I am aware now that some of these checkpoints served for looting
21 purposes. I received documents for Ivo and Dragica Komljenovic, and
22 that's how we managed to pass through all the checkpoints.
23 MR. LUKIC: Just for the record, in the index of seized documents
24 that we received from the Prosecution, in the section PS, II, 45, on page
25 45, ERN numbers P0050095 and P0050096, there is a trace that
1 Mr. Marjanovic requested and got the passes for those two persons.
2 Now I'd like the usher to show the witness document -- we have to
3 find the number first, sorry. We will move on and be back with this
4 document later on.
5 Q. [Interpretation] Although this has nothing to do with this topic,
6 I would like to ask you now whether you heard of the existence of one or
7 more interventions platoons in the municipality of Prijedor and in the
8 territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina at that time?
9 A. I have heard of the term Intervention Platoon, which is
10 established in units carrying out war operations. Brigades had
11 Intervention Platoons and even battalions, I think. In military terms, an
12 Intervention Platoon is the first to go into battle and is supposed to
13 break through the enemy defences so that advances can be made.
14 Q. Do you know whether there was an Intervention Platoon in the
15 municipality of Prijedor commanded by the Crisis Staff or later on the
16 Municipal Assembly?
17 A. I do not know. I think no such platoon existed, and I would have
18 heard about it because I lived there. But I never heard of any such
20 Q. It has not entered the record, so I will repeat my question. Did
21 you say that if such a platoon existed, I would certainly have heard about
23 A. In view of what I have said before, anything that happened in
24 Prijedor at the time and that I heard about, I commented on. In view of
25 my role as managing director of the mine, I'm sure, a hundred per cent
1 sure, I never heard about this.
2 MR. LUKIC: Now we can turn to the -- sorry.
3 MR. KOUMJIAN: Your Honour, I'm not accusing counsel of any ill
4 intent. But it counsel speak to each other in their own language loud
5 enough for the witness to hear, there's obviously a potential that it
6 could influence the answers of the witness.
7 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: I didn't want to interrupt at this point in
8 time. But in fact, we have to speak in the courtroom in a language we
9 understand. It's no doubt the possibility to speak with your client, if
10 necessary, and nobody has any right to listen to this. But to inform
11 maybe -- we don't know what's happening -- the witness on the expected
12 answer by speaking in a language which is not an official language of this
13 Tribunal is a method that should be at least be discussed as soon as
15 MR. LUKIC: Your Honours, thank you. And I appreciate that my
16 learned friend warned us. But it can be checked from the audiotapes that
17 the witness has already said what I asked him later on, only it was not
18 reflected in the transcript. So it's very easy to check it that he said
19 the same thing previously.
20 MR. OSTOJIC: Just so the record is clear, the interpreter did not
21 translate the witness's specific statements where the witness said that.
22 So for purposes of clarity, we just wanted that suggested. But certainly
23 the interpreters in their booth specifically on page 24, line 8, we invite
24 them to review the audiotape so they can then correct that mistake as
1 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: Please calm down and take the tone necessary for
2 the courtroom. And this is not a joke, Mr. Ostojic. I asked you to
3 behave as it can be expected from a Defence counsel in this courtroom.
4 And if you have problems with the translation, we had during the last 112
5 days always a method how to resolve the problem. And this was to ask the
6 booth whether there was a mistake or not. And please stay to the rules
7 and obey the rules.
8 MR. OSTOJIC: If I may just briefly, Your Honour --
9 JUDGE SCHOMBURG: No, not in the moment. The Defence asked for an
10 immediate hearing on procedural issues. Therefore, based on Rule 65 ter
11 (i), I hereby convene a meeting of the parties starting in 5 minutes in my
12 office. The trial stays adjourned until further notice.
13 May I ask the parties and the participants to be prepared to be
14 back in the courtroom at 11.00 sharp, and if there should be any delay
15 I'll let you know.
16 --- Proceedings adjourned at 10.23 a.m.
17 to be reconvened sine die