1 Friday, 27 February 2004
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.09 a.m.
5 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning. We are told there is a delay with
6 the witness arriving, no doubt because of the weather, but we are also
7 informed that counsel may wish to raise some matters with us, so we
8 thought we would use the time for that purpose.
9 Mr. Weiner.
10 MR. WEINER: Good morning. Your Honour, we have some housekeeping
11 matters which we'd like to raise, and one concerns next week. We will
12 have the psychiatrist here next week, and we know the Court wants a report
13 as soon as possible, so we thought the key thing which would enable a
14 report to come out within the next few weeks is to get the examinations
16 The doctors would like not only an examination, but they also want
17 to videotape the examinations. We contacted the prison -- or I'm sorry,
18 the detention facility, who indicates that that can be done but the hours
19 are very limited. Our other option is doing it in the building. The
20 Registry then raised the issue if we have a day of court and then the
21 defendant -- I'm sorry, the defendant or the accused then eats, by the
22 time we could start the interview it would be close to 3.00.
23 What we would like to do is either have one day off, which would
24 be take Tuesday off -- if we could take Tuesday off, we could get most of
25 the examination done, possibly even one day - maybe Wednesday - shorter
1 hours, but we would know after Tuesday how much could be completed.
2 Now, normally we would feel that that would seriously affect the
3 schedule of witnesses. We have a problem for next week.
4 Ambassador Fietelaars, who was supposed to be our witness for Monday and
5 Tuesday, had to return home for some personal matters. We do not have
6 Ambassador Fietelaars for next week. As a result, we have -- we will
7 finish this witness, then go into Mrs. Ogresta. Mrs. Ogresta we thought
8 would go into Monday. Our next witness isn't even arriving until the
9 weekend or Monday so we could barely put him on Tuesday, if not even place
10 him on the witness stand on Wednesday. As a result, we have a very, very
11 limited number of witnesses for next week. We have lost two days worth of
13 Taking one day off would not affect our schedule. It would enable
14 the report -- or the examination to be completed and the report to be in
15 as soon as possible. It would allow them to videotape the examination,
16 and it should not have any affect on the case from the Prosecution's point
17 of view. Thank you.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, the prospect that you put to us of
19 interrupting the hearing simply to make it more convenient for the medical
20 examination has a familiar ring. It is exactly the position which the
21 Defence wanted and which we were reluctant to accommodate, if I remember,
22 and in the end, we indicated that we would start late - we were sitting in
23 the afternoons at the time - but we would not allow them a full day. But
24 you want now to have a full day for your own purposes.
25 MR. WEINER: Yes. And there's two reasons. Number one, as you
1 recall, at that time we had scheduling problems. Due to the loss of a few
2 days, we had witnesses backed up. We were even sending witnesses that
3 were here back home. We were flying them back.
4 Next week we have a problem. We do not have sufficient witnesses.
5 Even without losing a day for examination, we will probably have a day and
6 possibly even more than a day where we have no witnesses, and we have to
7 come before the Court and say because of losing Ambassador Fietelaars we
8 do not have a witness. That's number one.
9 Number two, when they made the request, they did not indicate it
10 was a psychiatric examination.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Oh, I'm sorry, they did, in my recollection.
12 MR. WEINER: No. They said a medical examination that would take
13 seven hours. They never said psychiatric.
14 JUDGE PARKER: But it was by a specialist psychiatrist. I would
15 put two and two together there and make four.
16 MR. WEINER: At the time all we knew was a medical examination.
17 It's not in the record that --
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, that's stretching, yes. But perhaps
19 your strongest submission would be to have a day off on Tuesday because
20 you simply have run out of witnesses.
21 MR. WEINER: That is -- in all likelihood we will not have a
22 witness anyway on Tuesday.
23 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Petrovic.
24 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in connection with
25 what Mr. Weiner is saying that has to do with the schedule of witnesses,
1 the Defence has no position. In fact, it is at the discretion of you,
2 Your Honour, and of course the Prosecutor how they feel this should be
4 But this morning the Defence heard another thing which causes
5 serious concern of the Defence which is the videotaping of a psychiatric
6 finding is something that the defendant and the Defence will not agree to.
7 This is the first time that we hear that someone is planning to film a
8 psychiatric examination.
9 In my career, which may not be all that long, I have never had
10 occasion to hear of a similar practice. But in view of the situation and
11 irrespective of that, the Defence and the defendant absolutely will not
12 consent to that. I do not see a single purpose, a single reason why
13 professional examiners would film on videotape their examination.
14 This is something which so blatantly encroaches upon the privacy
15 of the client and then can so blatantly be reflected on the content of
16 what the psychiatric examination will be that this simply causes us
17 serious concern and is something that the defendant and the Defence do not
18 consent to. This is something that we hear for the first time this
19 morning. This is something which is totally out of the ordinary and
20 something which is wholly unnecessary.
21 So please, Your Honour, take this into consideration also when
22 making your decision as to how much time is necessary and what manner of
23 organisation is required for the arrangements to be made for this medical
24 examination and expert opinion on the part of the psychiatrist, but to
25 film this on videotape, that is really totally unnecessary. Thank you,
1 Your Honour.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner, the first question is the necessity --
3 the first question is the necessity of videotaping.
4 MR. WEINER: Yes. Your Honour, this is not my request. This is
5 the request of the doctors. It is their practice. Some of the doctors in
6 the United States take the practice that they videotape. Not only do they
7 make their own notes during the examination, but they then take the tapes
8 back and they watch it where they have a chance to sit and review the
9 session after and to see whatever else they pick up and to make sure they
10 didn't miss anything. They also review it with a team, their own team, to
11 make sure that there is nothing that's missed. That is their practice.
12 It's not a situation where the videotapes are turned over to the
13 Prosecutors or it's anything we're requesting. This is their -- this is
14 the process that they use. Also, where we have different doctors
15 involved, they can contact each other. We have one doctor from Croatia,
16 we have two doctors from the United States; one is from the West Coast,
17 one is from Hawaii. They can contact each other, they can refer to
18 different times, different periods, different actions, different matters
19 or instance that they've seen and discuss it. That's why they use that
20 type of technique. They're comfortable with it and they've made the
22 What we want to do is use a room similar to this where you have
23 videotape equipment. They have them at the detention facility and they
24 have them at this building. We're not going to have someone walking
25 around with a camera such as in a movie, taking pictures of the defendant
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 while -- with a video camera while the interview or the examination is
2 occurring. This is a medical process. This is the type of process that
3 they use.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Mr. Petrovic, you heard some further
5 development of the -- of the reason why the doctors, for their purposes,
6 apparently would prefer to use a tape. Do you have any further
8 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I unfortunately have
9 nothing to add to what I have already said. General Strugar does not
10 consent to being videotaped during the psychiatric interview. This
11 interview, as well as all other materials which are the result of the
12 psychiatric analysis will be submitted to the parties. They can also be
13 inspected and examined in this court and in all other ways. So this is
14 totally unnecessary. This process that Mr. Weiner is referring to is
15 being conducted in a room which is intended for interviews with the
16 accused. So this will have all the implications that the room is, in
17 terms of the views of the defendant and the people who are with him, it
18 will have all the implications of an interview being given to the
20 It is hard to distinguish in such circumstances what is a
21 psychiatric need and what is the giving of an interview. And as I've
22 already said, additionally, this grossly encroaches upon the privacy of
23 Mr. Strugar. And as I've already mentioned, this has never been mentioned
24 so far even though we've been discussing this examination for over a month
1 So it is with regret that I have to repeat, Your Honour, that the
2 accused Defendant Strugar does not agree to his psychiatric examination
3 being taped. No one, Your Honour, since medical evaluations have been
4 undertaken in the -- in this institution, no one has been videotaped
5 during such examinations. Why should General Strugar be the first
6 exception? For what particular reason? And many such examinations have
7 been undertaken by physicians from America, from Serbia, from Croatia,
8 from Europe, from all over the world, from all continents. So I don't see
9 a problem in that.
10 And as for the problems between Hawaii and the East Coast, that is
11 something which neither General Strugar nor the Defence are concerned
12 with. These people will be properly handsomely paid for their work and
13 they need to devote appropriate time to their duty, look at this man, and
14 render their opinion.
15 Thank you, Your Honour.
16 JUDGE PARKER: I would point out, Mr. Petrovic, that it is your
17 client who is raising the issue of his fitness to plead. It's not a
18 matter of just an uninvited intrusion into his privacy. The medical
19 experts that are being retained by the Prosecution, but they are
20 independent experts, have indicated a preference to use this because it
21 enables them not only to observe during the interview but to consider
22 again after the interview in case they have missed something during the
23 interview, so that it would seem on that basis that there could be some
24 medical advantage for them in being able to consider the tape afterwards.
25 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour -- I apologise. Just
1 one minute.
2 [Defence counsel confer]
3 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Petrovic. I'm sorry.
4 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I would like to repeat
5 yet once again what I already said. First of all, there is a host of
6 quandaries, of unknowns in this entire thing. First of all, we don't know
7 who these people are. Of course we have confidence that these are
8 adequately qualified people who will do their job properly.
9 Secondly, it is not clear from what I heard what particular
10 profile, what particular profile of this particular profession they are.
11 Thirdly, I did not get it whether all these people would be coming
12 here or one would come here and then videotape the examination and then
13 send it to Hawaii. All these things are not clear to me, Your Honour.
14 Secondly, if someone wishes to view something several times, to
15 check and re-check, he can have it audiotaped. He can record it. He can
16 jot it down, the way our experts have been doing. He can stay here for a
17 day, two or three or five days more to test his impressions, to again
18 broach -- raise a subject with the defendant, to analyse things that he
19 finds need clarification.
20 Please, Your Honour, it is quite true what you have said, that
21 this is a request raised by the Defence. It is true that this is a
22 problem because, according to Dr. Letic's finding, this is a man who is
23 unfit to stand trial, but it is equally true that this precedent which
24 they wish to set in this Detention Unit is something that we never had
1 Of course this can be easily verified from medical findings.
2 These are, of course, confidential matters, but they can be looked into.
3 Not a single interviewee for this purpose has been videotaped. So I ask
4 you kindly, Your Honour, not to allow General Strugar to become a
5 precedent, especially not in a situation when we have been waiting for
6 weeks, practically months now, for these esteemed experts to come, and now
7 we are faced with this kind of a request with just one of them wanting to
8 come and send videotapes to the other ones. Perhaps this is not the case.
9 I will allow that possibility. But at any rate, this position is such,
10 and please take it into consideration and take note of this position of
11 ours, namely it can be audiotaped. Let that be a compromise.
12 Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Petrovic.
14 Is there anything further, Mr. Weiner?
15 MR. WEINER: Yes, just as a point of clarification: All three
16 doctors will be here. All three will examine the accused. All three --
17 or the two Americans would like the videotape. They are consulting with
18 the third doctor, the Croatian. They will all three have access to the
19 videos, to review them, or they would like to have access to the videos to
20 review them to make sure there's nothing they've missed, to see if there's
21 anything they would like to add so they get a full, complete picture of
22 what occurred. You get a complete picture by looking after, by listening
23 again, and hopefully they can get the best diagnosis that they're able to
24 get by getting the full picture. Thank you.
25 JUDGE PARKER: I take it that you do not dispute what is put by
1 Mr. Petrovic, that this would be the first time that that process has been
2 followed in this Tribunal.
3 MR. WEINER: In this Tribunal but this is probably the first time
4 we've had a competency hearing as to psychiatric fitness in this Tribunal
5 too. So we've barely had this situation raised other than one or two
6 defendants just examined.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Now, the second issue, Mr. Weiner. You mentioned
8 Tuesday. Bearing in mind the interests of Defence counsel, would Monday
9 be as convenient to you and the witnesses? I mean the witnesses rather
10 than you, that is the medical experts.
11 MR. WEINER: No, because they're flying in Sunday and some are
12 arriving Monday morning, so they were hoping to all have a full meeting.
13 Some are meeting -- two are going to meet, I believe, on Sunday, and one
14 is going to meet -- the three are going to meet Monday afternoon. So
15 we're hoping for Tuesday.
16 JUDGE PARKER: I was trying to secure a long weekend for the
17 Defence but it doesn't seem that it will fit for you.
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 JUDGE PARKER: We are of the view that the unavailability of
20 witnesses for Tuesday provides a reason to agree to the Prosecution
21 request that there be no hearing on that day, that happening to make it
22 more convenient for the medical examinations that are to be conducted.
23 Were it not for the unavailability of other witnesses, we would not have
24 been minded to treat the Prosecution request differently from the earlier
25 request we had from the Defence of a similar nature.
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 We would, therefore, indicate that we will not sit on Tuesday of
2 next week.
3 With respect to the further request that this Chamber authorise
4 the videotaping of the interview, we are not presently persuaded of the
5 medical necessity for that. We can appreciate that it may have had some
6 convenience for the medical specialists, especially as they will be --
7 have come from and will return to different parts of the world, but in
8 view of the concern of the accused, his reluctance to be involved in a
9 videotaped interview and the obvious potential for his concern in itself
10 to affect his emotional composure if he is being videotaped, we think it
11 better that we do not authorise the videotaping of the interviews.
12 Was there any other matter that the Prosecution wished to raise at
13 this moment, Mr. Weiner?
14 MR. WEINER: No. I hope our witness is here.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Is there any matter that Defence counsel needs to
16 raise at this time?
17 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] No, Your Honour. I am sorry.
18 JUDGE PARKER: Don't apologise, Mr. Petrovic.
19 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour. Yes, in the desire
20 for us to make the best use of our time, to use it most efficiently, but
21 it so happens that we do not have anything to raise. But unfortunately it
22 will crop up eventually when we will have other things to deal with.
23 That's the way it usually happens. Thank you.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Well, the witness has arrived, we are told, and
25 will be brought in.
1 [The witness entered court]
2 JUDGE PARKER: Good morning, Mr. Vlasica.
3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning. Good morning.
4 JUDGE PARKER: Please sit down.
5 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
6 JUDGE PARKER: If I could remind you of the affirmation you gave
7 to tell the truth. It still applies.
8 Yes, Mr. Weiner.
9 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
10 WITNESS: IVO VLASICA [Resumed]
11 [Witness answered through interpreter]
12 Examined by Mr. Weiner: [Continued]
13 Q. Good morning, Mr. Vlasica.
14 A. Good morning. Good morning.
15 Q. Yesterday you were shown that map. Can you take a look at it,
16 sir. And you marked on the map where your store was on Od Puca Street.
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And is that mark still there?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And is that the correct location?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Thank you.
23 MR. WEINER: I'd like to offer the map at this time.
24 THE REGISTRAR: That will be P13.1.
25 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, would you like the map marked P13.1 or
1 should we give it just a full new number?
2 JUDGE PARKER: We have been using quite separate numbers in other
3 cases, so I think we'll continue that practice, although I must say my own
4 personal preference is exactly what the court officer has done, but we
5 were counselled that it would be more useful for some purposes if it went
6 the other way, so we'd better be consistent.
7 MR. WEINER: Thank you, Your Honour.
8 THE REGISTRAR: So that will be P83.
9 MR. WEINER: May the record reflect that that's P83, please. It
10 said P3.
11 JUDGE PARKER: I'm thinking that -- is this the map that was
12 marked for identification as 83 or a separate one?
13 MR. WEINER: No. We requested -- we offered it as an exhibit.
14 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, but --
15 [Trial Chamber and registrar confer]
16 MR. WEINER: I believe it should be 85.
17 THE REGISTRAR: I think the document doesn't say for what I put in
19 JUDGE PARKER: So I believe the correct number is now Exhibit P85.
20 And I just want to be sure that it's not the same map that was marked for
21 identification as 83.
22 MR. WEINER: The only reason I changed that is it first listed P3.
23 Based on this situation, could we have the witness sign it at this
24 point, just for protection.
25 JUDGE PARKER: I was wrong in raising 83. It's a photograph.
1 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
2 JUDGE PARKER: We've got ourselves clarified, and this is Exhibit
3 P85, and the witness is now signing it.
4 MR. WEINER: Thank you. Thank you.
5 Q. Sir, do you know a man by the name of Mato Skocko?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Is he a friend of yours?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And did he have a son?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And what was the son's name?
12 A. Tonci.
13 Q. And was that the same Tonci that you saw with the bread truck,
14 driving past you on December 6 in the early morning hours between 6.30 and
15 7.00 with a little truck with bread on it?
16 A. Yes. It's not really a truck, but it's a type of vehicle.
17 Q. And did you learn from your friend that something happened to his
18 son on December 6th?
19 A. That morning, I did not know. I found out only a few days later,
20 in hospital, that the young man was killed.
21 Q. And when did you learn that he had been killed?
22 A. A few days later, in hospital. Perhaps two or three days later.
23 Then I found out who all the people who were killed in the territory of
24 the town of Dubrovnik were.
25 Q. No, I'm sorry: On what date was he killed?
1 A. The 6th of December.
2 Q. And did you learn how he had been killed, from the father?
3 A. No. I found out from the medical staff, from the nurses and
5 Q. And did they say what happened to him?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. What did they say?
8 A. During the shelling, some shrapnel from a shell, a small fragment,
9 hit him at the door and went through the right side of his body directly
10 into the heart. So they didn't even notice the entry wound because there
11 was no blood. The young man turned around, and two metres further on he
12 fell, dead. Afterwards, they carried out an autopsy in the hospital, and
13 they realised that it was such a tiny fragment but that it did pierce the
14 heart nevertheless.
15 Q. Now, sir, you talked about your injuries that you suffered on
16 December 6th and that you were in the hospital for a little bit over two
17 weeks. As a result of those injuries suffered, did you receive a
18 disability from the government?
19 A. I was given the status of civilian invalid because I was not in
20 the military of Croatia's, so I am being treated as a 30 per cent disabled
22 Q. I'd like to show you some papers at this time.
23 Sir, I'd ask you to please look at the document with the ERN
24 number 03517595 on it. It has a B as in "boy" in the upper right. It's a
25 decision and it's the document with the stamp. Do you see that document,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And could you go to the second page of that. Now, there are a
4 group of four statements at the top of the second page, and I'd like to
5 read the second statement. It begins: "First Instance Medical
6 Committee..." Do you see that, sir?
7 A. Yes. "First Instance Medical Committee for the medical
8 examination of the persons covered by the Law on the Protection of
9 Military and Civilian War Invalids evaluated by its Finding and Advice
10 number 141/96 from the 23rd of April, 1996, the invalidity of the
11 above-mentioned at --"
12 Q. Could you slow down a little bit for the translators and
13 stenographer, please. Could we continue with right after the date, 23
14 April, 1996, and just slowly read the rest.
15 A. "... the invalidity of the above-mentioned at 30 per cent due to:
16 condition after the wounding of the right upper leg with pronounced
17 deformation of the muscle. T.309."
18 Q. Thank you, sir.
19 A. You're welcome.
20 Q. Could you go to the next document exhibit with the C on the top in
21 the B/C/S. It's 03517597.
22 I'm sorry. Could you go to the third document. I apologise.
23 Strike that. 0517599 at the top without any letter. The third document
24 of this set. It says "Finding and Opinion," in B/C/S. Do you see that
25 document, sir?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And there are, under "Finding and Opinion," there are four
3 statements. Could you read what's typed in under the first statement
4 where it starts, "The condition after the wounding ..." Could you read
5 that in for the record, please, under 1.
6 A. "The condition after the wounding of the right upper leg with
7 pronounced muscle deformation T.309."
8 Q. Thank you, sir.
9 A. You're welcome.
10 MR. WEINER: I'd like to offer these three documents.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Do you want anything to come into evidence with
12 respect to the third of them or just simply to be accepted as it is?
13 MR. WEINER: No, just to be accepted with it because that is the
14 full three-part set.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.
16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence is opposed to
17 having a number assigned to this document right now for the same reason
18 that we stated in respect to the first document. We have our reasons for
19 that. We want the Defence to deal with it, but we are not opposed to
20 having it marked for identification.
21 As for the third document, the Prosecutor has to be aware of the
22 fact that it is totally illegible, and that is why he probably withdrew
23 it, because the witness could not have read it in the first place. Thank
25 JUDGE PARKER: Is this a document, Mr. Rodic, that you have not
1 had notice of, or these documents ones you have not had notice of?
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, all three documents were
3 submitted to the Defence last night at 6.00 p.m. I think that no further
4 comment is required.
5 JUDGE PARKER: That being the case, Mr. Weiner, I think as a
6 matter of courtesy we will defer until the closing of the
7 cross-examination and your re-examination whether to receive the document
8 into evidence.
9 MR. WEINER: That's fair. No problem.
10 JUDGE PARKER: As long as you remember to remind us.
11 MR. WEINER: All right. Thank you.
12 JUDGE PARKER: And it seems that a copy that Mr. Rodic has may not
13 be legible. No doubt between you you can resolve that.
14 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Do you want this document to come under one number
16 or separately?
17 MR. WEINER: You could do it one number A, B, C or 1, 2, 3.
18 JUDGE PARKER: .1, .2, .3.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you, Your Honour. Yes, so that will be
20 P86.1, .2, .3.
21 MR. WEINER: For identification at this time.
22 JUDGE PARKER: The document ending in 595 will be .1. The
23 document ending in 599 will be .2, and the document ending in 597 will be
25 Yes, Mr. Weiner.
1 MR. WEINER: Thank you.
2 Q. Now, sir, we'll finish up. Did you eventually become a member of
3 the military?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When did you join the Croatian forces?
6 A. The 3rd of February, 1993.
7 Q. And what sort of function did you have in the Croatian military in
9 A. I drove a tank.
10 Q. And how long did you remain in that military?
11 A. For three years.
12 Q. Thank you. Now, sir, let's go back to October, November, December
13 1991. Did you ever see any sort of artillery weaponry in the Old Town of
15 A. No.
16 Q. Did you ever see any mortars in the Old Town of Dubrovnik in that
17 same time period, October?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you ever see any anti-aircraft guns or any sort of
20 anti-aircraft or smaller -- smaller artillery pieces in the Old Town in
21 October, November, December 1991?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you ever observe any outgoing fire from the Old Town of
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did you ever see any soldiers up on the walls or the ramparts in
2 the Old Town of Dubrovnik from October through December 1991?
3 A. No.
4 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters please ask the witness to
5 speak into the microphone. Thank you.
6 MR. WEINER:
7 Q. And finally, did you ever see numbers of Croatian soldiers in the
8 Old Town in October through December 1991?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Thank you very much.
11 MR. WEINER: No further questions.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.
13 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
14 Cross-examined by Mr. Rodic:
15 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Vlasica. I'm Goran Rodic,
16 attorney-at-law from Podgorica, and on behalf of General Strugar's
17 defence, I'm going to put a few questions to you in relation to your
19 A. Thank you.
20 Q. Since we speak a similar language and since we understand each
21 other and due to interpretation-related problems, we should not overlap
22 each other. Please wait for me to put my question and then give your
24 A. That's all right.
25 Q. Tell me, during 1991, you lived in Klisevska Street number 13,
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 which is at Babin Kuk; is that right?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Is it correct that near your house there were hotels at that time,
4 Zagreb, Kompas?
5 A. Yes, near my house, yes. Not very nearby, but around there.
6 Zagreb about 200 metres, Kompas about 3 or 400 metres, towards the bay.
7 Q. Tell me, is this the first time that you're in The Hague?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. When did you come?
10 A. Sunday.
11 Q. Can you remember the date?
12 A. The 22nd.
13 Q. You arrived in the morning; right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. You never came to The Hague before in relation to any kind of
16 obligations vis-a-vis the Tribunal?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Who else came to The Hague together with you from Dubrovnik,
19 people from Dubrovnik?
20 A. I know that some people came, but who it was, I don't know for
22 Q. Did you see anyone here?
23 A. No. I was just told that some individuals were here, but I didn't
24 see them.
25 Q. So during these five days you've been on your own. You didn't see
1 any other people from Dubrovnik?
2 A. Unfortunately, I've been all on my own.
3 Q. Did you happen to see Djelo Jusic?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Nikola Jovic?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Do you know them?
8 A. Yes, very well.
9 Q. Tell me, did you bring your medical documentation with you when
10 you came to The Hague?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Did you ever submit this documentation to the OTP before you came
14 A. No.
15 Q. What were all the documents that you brought along and what did
16 you give to the Prosecutor specifically?
17 A. What you saw.
18 Q. So altogether, these four documents.
19 A. That's right.
20 Q. Do you have any other documents on you?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Do you have the originals of these documents here with you?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Do you have them right here, now?
25 A. No. They're at the hotel, the safe at the hotel.
1 Q. Tell me, what schools have you completed?
2 A. I completed the school for salespeople, a three-year secondary
3 school, and after that I did my military service and then I trained for
4 another two years in order to be trained as head of a shop.
5 Q. If I understood you correctly, this was before you went to the
6 army, I mean this additional training?
7 A. No. I said it very nicely. Later, after, I did my military
9 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't understand you.
10 A. What a pity. We speak the same language.
11 Q. In the period from 1979 until today, have you ever had a criminal
13 A. No.
14 Q. Or were any proceedings instituted against you?
15 A. No.
16 Q. The company Dubrovkinja, where you worked during 1991, was a
17 socially owned or state-owned company, wasn't it?
18 A. A state-owned company, of course.
19 Q. Since when have you had a private shop?
20 A. Since 1999.
21 Q. This is the shop in Mlini that was referred to?
22 A. First I worked in Mokosica for five years, and then I closed that
23 shop and opened a new one in Mlini.
24 Q. Is that your own shop? Do you own the premises?
25 A. No. I rented the space.
1 Q. Did you have anything like that in the Old Town?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Did you make any statements to the investigators?
4 A. Before, you mean?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Can you tell me when?
8 A. The year 2000.
9 Q. Was this on the 30th of May, 2000, in Dubrovnik, and was Dirk
10 Hooijkaas the investigator who talked to you?
11 A. Perhaps it did take place then, but I don't know the gentleman's
13 Q. Do you remember -- do you remember Andrea Bralic who did the
15 A. I remember that there was a girl there, but I don't remember her
16 exact name either.
17 Q. Did you tell the investigator everything that you considered to be
18 of relevance?
19 A. The same things I am saying now I said then.
20 Q. Tell me, have you read this statement?
21 A. I could not have because it was English and I don't speak English.
22 But later on, when they translated it, then I read that out.
23 Q. Can you tell me when it was later that you were given this version
24 in Croatian?
25 A. I had another meeting with them, and then they brought it to me
1 and they asked me to confirm what I had said, and I said that all of it
2 was correct and that what was written down was exactly what I had said,
3 and that is the way it was.
4 Q. Tell me, this other meeting you had with them, how much time had
5 gone by between those two interviews?
6 A. To tell you the truth --
7 Q. Well, approximately.
8 A. About a year. I can't tell you exactly.
9 Q. So you were given the version of your statement in the Croatian
10 language after a year, which you then read and signed the English version;
11 is that not so?
12 A. Yes. That's the way it was, because I could see that it was --
13 that it reflected exactly what I had said, but I did not sign the English
14 version but the Croatian version. Of course, I cannot read English, and I
15 had to sign what was written in Croatian.
16 Q. Tell me, on the 30th of May, 2000, after you completed this
17 interview in which participated the investigator and the lady translator,
18 were you read out at that time the statement compiled in English, and did
19 the lady interpreter interpret it for you into Croatian to see what was
21 A. I believe that it was a different date. I cannot recall the exact
22 date. Don't try to trip me.
23 Q. I'm not trying to trip you. What it says is this date, the 30th
24 of May.
25 A. Yes. Of course they read what I had said and they read it out to
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
2 Q. They read it out to you in English or was it translated to you
3 into Croatian?
4 A. Yes, it was.
5 Q. And after a year, they gave you this written statement translated
6 into Croatian in writing which you then read and signed?
7 A. Yes. After it had been written, yes, naturally.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 A. You're welcome.
10 Q. Did you give the investigators the medical documentation in the
11 year 2000 when they came to see you?
12 A. No, I didn't.
13 Q. Can you explain to me why you didn't give it to them?
14 A. Because nobody asked me to.
15 Q. Did you mention to them that you had been wounded?
16 A. Normally they already knew everything, just like you now know
18 Q. So on that occasion, the investigator didn't ask you to hand over
19 any documentation at all?
20 A. Well, frankly speaking, I cannot tell you exactly. I don't
22 Q. Can you tell me who was it exactly that asked this documentation
23 from you and when?
24 A. It was The Hague Tribunal. They told me that I should bring it
25 along when I came here.
1 Q. So on the 22nd of February you arrived at The Hague. So can you
2 tell me, in relation to the 22nd of February, how long before that was it
3 that they had asked you to submit - i.e. bring - this documentation?
4 A. That was about a month before that date.
5 Q. Did they mention, when they asked you this a month before that
6 date, that you should send it by fax or similar ways?
7 A. Yes, they did, but as I had no possibilities and I had a lot of
8 choice -- a lot of work to do with my business, I didn't. And it was also
9 hard to gather all the documents. I went to the hospital. It was hard to
10 collect all the documentation, because 13 years had elapsed after also.
11 So I really had great difficulty. They had great difficulty to find the
12 document for me. That's for one document.
13 For the other documents which you are seeing now, those I already
14 had, but of course I wanted to compile a complete file of documentation in
15 order to bring a proper file here.
16 Q. So you talked to the investigators in the year 2000, and the year
17 after that, in the year 2001, you were given the statement in Croatian for
18 you to read and sign. So tell me, from that time up to date, have you had
19 occasion, and if so, where and when, to re-read your statement?
20 A. Well, as you can see for yourself --
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear counsel because of
22 the overlapping.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] You can see these documents which I
24 have before me, which you have, are documents which I had been given a
25 long time ago, so I put together this documentation, and that is I did my
1 best. There is no reason for me to remember any bad things.
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Perhaps you didn't understand me quite correctly.
4 A. Possibly.
5 Q. What I'm interested in is from the year 2001 to this day, have you
6 had occasion to re-read your statement?
7 A. No. No.
8 Q. Did anyone read out your statement to you?
9 A. In the year 2001 when I received it and signed it. Actually,
10 after that I was no longer interested in it. This is what I said, and I
11 stand behind my words, and I have no reason to be concerned with that any
13 Q. Did you read it now in The Hague after you came here?
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. Who gave it to you?
16 A. This gentleman.
17 JUDGE PARKER: I think the record should reveal an indication of
18 Mr. Weiner.
19 MR. WEINER: Yes.
20 THE WITNESS: I'm sorry.
21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Were there any mistakes in the statement which you read?
23 A. Everything reflected exactly my words.
24 Q. So what you said in the statement is what you're saying today in
1 A. That is right.
2 Q. There was no need for any corrections.
3 A. Naturally there wasn't.
4 Q. Tell me, I assume that after having served the military, you were
5 assigned in accordance with the law on the military obligation into the
6 reserve force of the JNA, were you not?
7 A. Yes, I was.
8 Q. Can you tell me to what particular unit.
9 A. Territorial Defence Reconnaissance Unit. I was a reconnaissance
10 soldier according to establishment.
11 Q. So you kept this establishment post also in the reserve?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. Tell me, this Territorial Defence unit, who did it belong to?
14 Where was it located?
15 A. Well, it was within the framework, I believe as would it be only
16 normal, of Trebinje, because we were to Trebinje, to Duz for training, and
17 to this location -- help me. If you can help me remember the name. It's
18 in Montenegro.
19 Q. Well, it doesn't matter. I suppose then that you did military
20 exercises as part of the Trebinje Brigade?
21 A. Yes, that is correct.
22 Q. In 1991, you were 34 years old, and you were still a military
23 conscript. You were still eligible for the draft?
24 A. Well, yes, I was, but I was not a military conscript any more
25 because I finished that in 1989.
1 Q. Can you tell me what it was that you finished?
2 A. Well, the reserve formation. Namely, I was given a document to
3 the effect that I was no longer a reservist.
4 Q. Why was that?
5 A. Well, in all fairness I really don't know. Perhaps because of the
6 volume of my work or because I had put on some weight. I really don't
8 Q. So at 34, the army could do without you. That is quite
10 A. Well, yes, but it was a commonly known fact why I was excluded,
11 because people knew what lay in store in the -- what would happen over the
12 next two or three years, and the entire Territorial Defence of Dubrovnik
13 was dismantled and all the weapons were taken to the Trebinje barracks so
14 that we were left without weapons.
15 Q. You are referring to 1989  when they sort of wrote you off
16 from the reserve force.
17 A. Yes exactly, because they knew exactly what was going to happen.
18 In fact, they had been planning beforehand.
19 MR. WEINER: Your Honour. I don't want to object, it's just the
20 transcript says you're referring to 1999. Should that be corrected?
21 JUDGE PARKER: It should be 1989. That was the question I think
22 you asked, Mr. Rodic.
23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] That is right, Your Honour.
24 Q. Can you explain in more specific terms what was it was that was
25 being planned as of 1989?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. What was being planned? This is something that the top brass of
2 the Yugoslav People's Army knows or knew, and the Yugoslav leadership,
3 because if they had withdrawn the complete armaments of the Territorial
4 Defence, that we in the city of Dubrovnik could no longer have any
5 weapons, it only meant that this was being done in a planned fashion. Now,
6 what was being planned? I think you know that better than anybody else.
7 What was being planned was what happened later.
8 Q. Do you have any prejudices vis-a-vis my person or --
9 A. No, none at all.
10 Q. Because you say I knew, I know what was -- what had been in store,
11 what was being planned.
12 A. No, because you are the Defence counsel for this gentleman. Of
13 course I have respect for you, but I -- this is the way I have to say it.
14 How else could I put it?
15 Q. But when you say that they dismissed you from the reserve force in
16 1989 and you only stopped being a member of the League of Communists only
17 in 1990, that is a bit illogical, don't you think?
18 A. Look here, I'll tell you this: Had I known what would happen, I
19 would have perhaps left the League of Communists even earlier, but I think
20 that it is not at all important at this point when I ceased being a member
21 of the League of Communists because this is really immaterial vis-a-vis
23 Q. So you believe it unimportant?
24 A. I do. I do. I think it unimportant because it is something else
25 that we are now discussing. We are not discussing what I was and whether
1 I was a member of the League of Communists.
2 Q. But our distinguished colleague the Prosecutor asked you before I
3 did. It was not me who started asking you this question.
4 A. That's right.
5 Q. But you replied to him.
6 A. Yes I did. I had to tell him my entire biography because he has
7 to have all these particulars. So, of course, do you.
8 Q. Would you please be so kind as to also give me all the replies I
9 want. I want --
10 A. Of course I will tell you everything that I want -- that you want
11 to hear and that I know the answer to. Of course I will be telling you
12 the truth, except when I don't know I will not reply.
13 Q. What was the rank that you had when you left the army?
14 A. It was lance corporal. When I left the reserves. I apologise. I
15 didn't quite get your question. When I left the reserves I was given the
16 rank of Second Lieutenant.
17 Q. And in this period since you finished serving the military service
18 up to 1989, what was your promotion record? How come and on what basis?
19 A. Because I went for training twice and because of my merits.
20 Q. What training?
21 A. I went to Makarska for training of reconnaissance and sabotage
22 units two times.
23 Q. When you say on the basis your merits, that means that you were,
24 so to speak, a good soldier also in the reserve and gave a good account of
1 A. Yes, naturally.
2 Q. And were you maintaining -- was your name in the military
3 department, in the recruitment office in Dubrovnik records?
4 A. Yes, it was.
5 Q. And did the recruitment office in Dubrovnik actually exclude you
6 from the reserve?
7 A. Well, since so many years have elapsed, I am not sure, but I'm
8 quite sure this instruction came from the top, but from where exactly, I
9 can't say.
10 Q. What do you mean "from the top"?
11 A. Well, from the top echelons of the Yugoslav People's Army. It
12 couldn't have been anyone from the centre of the city unless such
13 instructions have been passed down from some people who were to remove us,
14 so to speak, from the reserve force.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Rodic?
16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
17 JUDGE PARKER: We will have a 20-minute break.
18 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
19 --- On resuming at 10.51 a.m.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic.
21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. During the
22 break, in contact with the Victims and Witness Unit, I was asked about
23 another one of the Prosecution witnesses about to come, and that is Ivo
24 Vujnovic, Your Honour. I don't know whether we should deal with this
25 matter in front of this witness or should the witness be asked to wait
1 before we resolve the matter that has to do with the next witness.
2 JUDGE PARKER: Does it directly concern his evidence?
3 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] It doesn't.
4 JUDGE PARKER: I think the witness could stay seated.
5 If you'll excuse us. Just stay where you are and we'll deal with
6 another matter.
7 Yes, Mr. Rodic.
8 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the witness Ivo Vujnovic
9 was announced by the Prosecution in its submission on the 25th of
10 February, and it was stated that he would testify on the 2nd of March. So
11 again the seven-day deadline was not observed, and this is what had been
12 established at the Pre-Trial Conference on the 15th of December, last
13 year. That is one point.
14 Another thing is far more of a problem and it has to do with the
15 testimony of that witness. Part of the material for him, namely
16 transcripts, was disclosed to the Defence only two days ago, and it was
17 only last night that the Defence received audiotapes. The point of these
18 transcripts and the audiotapes is that intercepts, alleged intercepts were
19 recorded pertaining to the 6th of December, 1991, and this was done by the
20 mentioned witness.
21 Bearing in mind the disclosure order between the parties which
22 cannot be less than ten days, and that was also established at the
23 pre-trial conference on the 15th of December last year, the Defence indeed
24 is not in a position to prepare itself to cross-examine this witness.
25 During such a short period of time, we cannot deal with all this material.
1 Therefore, it would be useful if this witness were not brought to The
2 Hague at that point in time so that no undue expenses are incurred by way
3 of his travel and so on. It would be better if he could come on another
4 occasion and testify then so that he could be dealt with during one trip.
5 So this material is the core of the matter that his testimony
6 deals with, and we are not in a position to check it out during such a
7 short period of time. We cannot listen to the intercept. We cannot
8 consult experts in this particular field.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Are these intercepts military intercepts?
10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: And they relate to the 6th of December, 1991?
12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Rodic.
14 Mr. Re.
15 MR. RE: The -- it is true the tapes themselves were disclosed, as
16 I found out, I think, two days ago. The Prosecution, we understood that
17 they had been disclosed some time ago. It seems to have been an
18 administrative oversight not to have disclosed the tapes themselves. We
19 certainly disclosed the transcripts of the tapes within the required time
20 period under the order.
21 JUDGE PARKER: What does that mean?
22 MR. RE: The exact date? Can I just consult with the case
23 manager? My learned friend's submission has taken me just by surprise at
24 this particular time.
25 The 24th --
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Of February.
2 MR. RE: Of February, yes.
3 JUDGE PARKER: And how extensive are these transcripts and tapes?
4 MR. RE: From memory, I think there's about 15 pages of
5 transcripts. That's from memory. My learned friend can correct me if I'm
7 The -- it would have been well within time had Mr. Fietelaars,
8 Ambassador Fietelaars testified as anticipated next week. We weren't
9 anticipating Mr. Vujnovic testifying until sometime later next week, and
10 we had to reschedule him because Mr. Fietelaars became unavailable due to
11 personal reasons at the beginning of the week.
12 The nature of the -- the nature of the evidence, it doesn't
13 actually concern -- there certainly aren't intercepts involving the
14 accused, orders, or anything directly from the accused.
15 JUDGE PARKER: They must be relevant.
16 MR. RE: They're relevant as to the fact of an extent of
17 communications between JNA units on the 6th of December, 1991. That's as
18 far as the Prosecution will take the evidence of this witness. He was a
19 person who was intercepting -- an amateur, so to speak, intercepting and
20 taping conversations and then making transcripts of them and providing
21 intelligence to the Croatian authorities. It -- that's the limit of it.
22 It's only to establish the extent of and the fact of JNA communications on
23 the 6th of December, which is circumstantially leading to circumstantial
24 inferences available back up to the accused and the chain of command.
25 So in that sense, it's -- the late disclosure is -- is not as
1 prejudicial as it may seem at first blush.
2 JUDGE PARKER: But there would have been no opportunity to have
3 any technical evaluation of the tapes if they are not disclosed until two
4 days ago.
5 MR. RE: Of course. The -- there is a difficulty with these
6 tapes, and we will be relying more heavily upon the transcript and the
7 fact of the witness identifying what was said by his transcript rather
8 than the tapes. The tapes are very unclear. They're very - what's the
9 word? - soft, hard to hear, and the witness has had to go back himself to
10 transcribe them in Zagreb. We tried to transcribe them here but the
11 interpreters couldn't do so so he's gone back to transcribe them himself.
12 JUDGE PARKER: That only strengthens the concern of Mr. Rodic, I
13 would think, that they have adequate time with the tapes.
14 MR. RE: I can't -- I don't -- of course the Prosecution doesn't
15 disagree that the Defence, of course, should have proper preparation time
16 if they want to cross-examine the veracity of the tapes and so on.
17 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Re, let me indicate the Chamber's first
18 impression; that is that it would be quite impractical to expect the
19 Defence to cross-examine next week this witness. Whether you would want
20 to call him in chief is a different matter, but as Mr. Rodic points out,
21 it would be perhaps more efficient if the witness came at a later time and
22 got his evidence and his cross-examination over at the one time.
23 MR. RE: Could we possibly revisit this a little bit later in the
24 day when I've -- when we've had a chance to speak to VWU and work out
25 witnesses and -- and so? I certainly understand Your Honour's point.
1 I'll be in a much better position to respond to it maybe in an hour or
3 JUDGE PARKER: Well, there are two issues. The first is whether
4 the Defence should be required to cross-examine the witness if the witness
5 is called. I think you can take it the answer is no.
6 For the Prosecution, then, will be the consequential question,
7 whether to proceed with calling the evidence of this witness in chief or
8 whether to have another witness, if one is available, or whether to have
9 even more time not sitting.
10 I leave that with you.
11 MR. RE: I'll --
12 JUDGE PARKER: And we will hear in due course.
13 Mr. Rodic, we've rather moved ahead of you, perhaps.
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry that my learned
15 friend Mr. Re is improvising now in your presence, although I gave you the
16 exact figures.
17 It is not true that we received the audiotape two days ago. We
18 received it last night at 6.00 p.m. The transcripts were given to us two
19 days ago. That is correct. The transcripts do not amount to 15 pages but
20 a lot more.
21 And another thing that is correct is that this witness, on the
22 15th of December last year, gave a statement to the investigators of the
23 OTP and, at that time, he handed over these audiotapes and his
24 transcripts. It's been more than two months since then.
25 That is accurate information in relation to this submission put
1 forth by the Defence. Thank you.
2 JUDGE PARKER: You heard the position that was indicated to
3 Mr. Re, Mr. Rodic. We leave it to the Prosecution whether or not they
4 call the witness next week, but if they do, you will not be required to
5 cross-examine, and that will have to happen at a later time. And as you
6 suggest, it may be more practical to defer the witness altogether to a
7 later time.
8 So I think we can -- you can rest easy on that at the moment. It
9 may be that the Prosecution will want to introduce a different witness at
10 somewhat short notice. We'll have to see whether that produces any
11 problems when and if that should happen.
12 I think we can carry on now with the cross-examination of our very
13 patient witness sitting here. Thank you.
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Sir, we will continue now with the cross-examination.
16 I would be interested in the following: During 1990 and 1991, did
17 you get any call-up papers from the military department?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Tell me, was there any mobilisation in Croatia before October
21 A. No.
22 Q. Was general mobilisation declared in Croatia later?
23 A. No, not as far as I know.
24 Q. I'm talking about these last three months of 1991.
25 A. As far as I know, no.
1 Q. Did you listen to the radio regularly?
2 A. Well, from time to time.
3 Q. Did you perhaps hear through the media that there was a general
4 mobilisation call?
5 A. I didn't hear about that.
6 Q. Do you have a military booklet?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Are your years of military service during the war registered in
10 A. For the Yugoslav army or for the Croatian army?
11 Q. I mean the Croatian army.
12 A. Yes, from 1993 until 1996, yes.
13 Q. And before you joined the Croatian army, can you tell me which
14 formation you were in in the defence of Dubrovnik?
15 A. I was a civilian in the Civil Defence. It's not a formation.
16 It's not part of the military establishment. It is there to help
17 civilians; to put people in shelters, to bring food, to bring material
18 that is indispensable for people who are in shelters.
19 Q. Who was commander of the Civil Defence?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. What position did you have in the Civil Defence?
22 A. I was a mere worker, believe me. Nothing. I mean, when some help
23 was needed, then they called me to help.
24 Q. Does this Civil Defence have an establishment of its own with its
25 own command, et cetera?
12 Blank page inserted to ensure pagination corresponds between the French and
13 English transcripts.
1 A. Believe me, I don't know.
2 Q. Who was it that called you up then?
3 A. Well, it was people who were organised in this respect. I don't
4 know whether there were any formations involved. I just know that they
5 called me and said, "Ivo, this should be taken here and that should be
6 taken there. Could you take this food to the shelter," things like that.
7 Q. You said "at the level of the people who were involved in the
8 organisation." Those were your exact words.
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What do you mean by that? What do you actually mean when you say
12 A. People who were in charge of the Old Town so that it would
13 function somehow, because there were a great many civilians in the Old
14 Town. That is to say that things had to be organised so that these people
15 could somehow live in the Old Town.
16 Q. Please focus on my question, and please give me brief and succinct
17 answers because of the time limits involved.
18 So you've been repeating time and again what the Civil Defence
19 does. I know. We heard about that three times from you. I am asking you
20 specifically how they got in touch with you as a member of the Civil
21 Defence. Who was it that called you up? Who are these people who are
22 organised at this level, as you had put it?
23 A. I would receive a telephone call, and who these people are, I
24 don't know.
25 Q. Which telephone did they use? Where did they call you?
1 A. They called my number at the store.
2 Q. And an unknown person phones you at the store and makes you go
3 here and there in the Old Town?
4 A. Well, it's not that anybody made me go here and there. We were
5 all involved because we were all supposed to help each other.
6 Q. Can you tell me who these X, Y people are?
7 A. I don't know.
8 Q. Did you ever receive such calls around midday or in the afternoon
9 or in the early evening? Please wait for me to finish my question.
10 A. No.
11 Q. I still haven't finished.
12 A. I'm sorry.
13 Q. So was it necessary for you to provide your services for the Civil
14 Defence during other times of the day; midday, afternoon, early evening?
15 A. No.
16 Q. So by when were all these needs of the population in Dubrovnik
17 over in relation to your duties in the Civil Defence?
18 A. As far as I'm concerned myself, it was between 6.00 and 8.00 in
19 the morning.
20 Q. So where did you spend your working hours between 6.00 and 8.00 in
21 the morning?
22 A. In the store.
23 Q. Was that your job before the war, too, to sell these food products
24 at the store?
25 A. Yes.
1 Q. Did you do that same job between 6.00 and 8.00 in the morning
2 while you were at the store in this period between October and December
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. When did you then carry out your activities related to the Civil
6 Defence and assisting people in terms of material, bringing them food to
7 the shelters, et cetera?
8 A. Since I was the head of that particular facility, of course I had
9 my workers, my employees, and if anything was needed, then I took care of
11 Q. A few minutes ago, you told me that you spent the time between
12 6.00 and 8.00 in the morning at the workplace, in the shop. You did not
13 mention that you left at any point.
14 A. Well, I didn't because it all depended on the needs involved.
15 Q. Who would call you and who would tell you about these needs?
16 Could you please explain this to us. What was this all about?
17 A. If a person whose name I would not know would phone me at the
18 store and tell me, "Ivo, please take such-and-such an amount of bread and
19 such-and-such an amount of water to a shelter," Ivo would do it and go
20 back to the shop.
21 Q. Can you remember any other task that you carried out on behalf of
22 the Civilian Defence except for carrying milk?
23 A. That's the only thing I did. Nothing else.
24 Q. So you're a member of the Civilian Defence, and in terms of all of
25 the activities in the October - December 1991 period, the only thing you
1 did was go out a few times in the period between 6.00 and 8.00 a.m. in
2 order to take some milk to the shelters.
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Is that your assertion?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. If you were the boss, if you were the foreman, why couldn't one of
7 your workers take that milk there?
8 A. Well, you know how it was. If I -- I wouldn't have wanted a woman
9 to go out and expose herself to risk. And I received that order, so I
10 thought it was the right thing to do.
11 Q. Tell me, are you personally ashamed or is there any other reason
12 why you don't want to talk about your participation in the 1991 war?
13 A. I did not understand the question.
14 Q. My question is, are you perhaps ashamed or is there any other
15 reason why you do not wish to explain to us here your participation in
16 this period from October to December 1991 in the, shall I say, Civilian
17 Defence of the Old Town?
18 A. There is no shame. I did what I did during the war. I'm proud of
19 it. I did it to help the people, and I'm proud of having helped them.
20 Q. So you helped these people on the orders of unknown people; right?
21 Did you ever help any people without having received the orders from
23 A. Yes, certainly, when the need arose.
24 Q. Were these needs daily needs?
25 A. No, they were not.
1 Q. Why weren't they?
2 A. Well, it depended on the actual time. Of course, if someone was
3 in need, I would see to that particular need of that particular person. I
4 would help him.
5 Q. In your statement which you gave the investigators in the year
6 2000 in paragraph 2 you describe how the attack on Srdj had started on the
7 1st of October by shelling. Then in that paragraph, you say: "I noticed
8 a number of smaller JNA patrol boats in the area. They would stay away at
9 a safe distance so that shells could not hit them."
10 Can you tell me what you meant by this, these boats were being
11 away at a safe distance, maintaining a safe distance in order not to be
12 hit by shells.
13 A. What I meant was that these patrol boats which had blockaded
14 Dubrovnik were a bit away from the walls. And as for the shells not
15 hitting them, it could have been a stray shell that could have hit your
16 own boat. That's what I meant, and that's what they sought to avoid.
17 Q. From my side, from where I'm standing, I cannot hit a single boat,
18 Mr. Vlasica.
19 A. Of course I meant from the side of the Yugoslav People's Army. I
20 apologise to you, sir.
21 Q. So these patrol boats were a bit off at a safe distance from the
22 ramparts of the Old Town in order to avoid getting hit by JNA shells?
23 A. That's the way I saw it. That's what I thought. We had no
24 weapons, and this is the only thing I had in mind when I made the
1 Q. Who didn't have any weapons?
2 A. We in Dubrovnik didn't have any weapons. If you were thinking
3 about our shells.
4 Q. I'm not speaking in terms of "our" or "your." I'm asking you who
5 is "we" in Dubrovnik?
6 A. I'm talking about our people, our citizens who remained in
8 Q. So there were no weapons at all in Dubrovnik?
9 A. To the best of my knowledge, no. I didn't see any weapons, nor
10 did I hear that -- nor did I know that there were any.
11 Q. And you didn't hear that there were any weapons there?
12 A. I wasn't interested, frankly speaking.
13 Q. You go on in this same statement to say: "Large gunboats arrived
14 in the area later on. I remember the name of the boats being Split and
15 Kotor. I'm able to recall the names because I had taken a course for a
16 unit commander and had been involved in the Croatian Civil Defence, and I
17 have a personal interest in armaments. During my time in school, we had
18 classes relating to the armament power of the former Yugoslavia."
19 Can you explain to me what kind of a course for a unit commander
20 was it you completed and this personal interest of yours in armaments.
21 A. When I was serving the Yugoslav People's Army as a member of a
22 Reconnaissance Unit, in order to reconnoiter, I had to be trained. I had
23 to know what arms I was looking for and what formations there were and
25 And as for the ships, we normally had seen them before so that at
1 that particular point I recognised them. And then again, it was written
2 in the newspapers what their names were. It was no secret.
3 Q. You say that during your military service with the JNA, you
4 completed the course for a unit commander.
5 A. Perhaps it is miswritten. Actually, I was trained for lance
6 corporal, squad leader.
7 Q. Do we agree that there is a huge difference between a squad leader
8 who is a plain soldier and a unit commander?
9 A. We certainly do.
10 Q. If nothing else, you have this necessary military experience?
11 A. Yes, I do.
12 Q. Can you explain to me more specifically the sentence: "During my
13 time in school, we had classes relating to the armament power of the
14 former Yugoslavia."
15 A. Well, we were told --
16 Q. Who? Who told you?
17 A. Naturally my superiors who were in the Yugoslav People's Army gave
18 us information as to the approximate power of the Yugoslav People's Army.
19 We certainly were not given accurate information, but it was,
20 nevertheless, quite certain that we were a quite powerful army then.
21 Q. So during this training course that you attended, not for a
22 commander of a unit but for a lance corporal, you learned all this during
23 that time.
24 A. Yes, definitely.
25 Q. Tell me, where is the headquarters, the staff of the Civil
2 A. I do not know.
3 Q. And you said that you knew Nikola Jovic.
4 A. Yes, I do, because we were in the same line of work.
5 Q. Was Nikola Jovic also a member of the Civil Defence?
6 A. I don't know. I don't know about that.
7 Q. Did Nikola Jovic also perhaps on occasion leave his store in order
8 to perform a duty for the Civil Defence?
9 A. I don't know.
10 Q. If I tell you that Nikola Jovic testified here and that he also
11 said that he had been a member of the Civil Defence and that he had been
12 sent on behalf of the Civil Defence to Orasac to open fire at JNA ships
13 from a Maljutka, can you comment on that? What is your opinion about it?
14 A. This is what you are saying. I don't know anything about that.
15 Q. Mr. Vlasica, I'm familiarising you with what was stated before
16 this Tribunal by Nikola Jovic. He said that as a member of the Civil
17 Defence --
18 MR. WEINER: Objection, Your Honour.
19 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
20 MR. WEINER: He's asking this witness for his opinion of Nikola
21 Jovic's testimony. I would argue that that's improper cross-examination.
22 You're asking one witness to comment upon another witness's testimony.
23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, Nikola Jovic, a witness
24 who took the stand before this distinguished Chamber said that he had been
25 a member of the Civil Defence, like this witness here. However, Nikola
1 Jovic said that as a member of the Civil Defence, he had a military
2 mission, namely to open fire from Maljutkas at the JNA ships within the
3 framework of the same duties and obligation of a formation to which both
4 that witness and this witness belonged. So I'm asking this witness here
5 whether that was the -- appropriate to the Civilian Defence establishment
6 at the time.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, you certainly may ask him whether he was
8 ever called on to perform any military functions, perhaps whether he knew
9 of any other members of the Civil Defence who were called on to perform
10 military functions, but you -- the way you were putting the question
11 before suggested you were wanting the witness to say whether he believed
12 or accepted what the earlier witness, Mr. Jovic, had said, and that is not
13 a proper question.
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I shall rephrase the
16 Q. Were members of the Civil Defence, in any form, sent to perform
17 purely military tasks?
18 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
19 Q. Do you know any other members of the Civil Defence?
20 A. As to whether I know others, I only know those people who helped
21 other people in town.
22 Q. Mr. Vlasica, I think that helping other people in town is closely
23 associated with the Civil Defence, but it is a personal matter of every
24 man, of every human being. I believe that you, even if you had not been a
25 member of the Civil Defence, would have helped people in Dubrovnik, in the
1 Old Town.
2 A. Of course I would have, as far as that question is concerned. But
3 we only worked within the Old City to help others, and that is what I
4 personally know.
5 Q. Did you ever hear of any member of the Civil Defence performing a
6 military duty?
7 A. No, I didn't.
8 Q. To your knowledge, were members of the Civil Defence engaged in
9 only assisting people in terms of providing food for the population or was
10 there something else there too?
11 A. As far as I was informed, this is the only thing we did. I don't
12 know about anything else.
13 Q. Did you report to anyone to say that you had completed the task
14 that had been assigned to you?
15 A. No.
16 Q. What, for instance, if it should so happen that you set out to
17 take milk to the shelter and then you are prevented from doing that?
18 A. What I took there, what supplies I did manage to take, I had to
19 make a document about it which I then initialed and then handed it over in
20 Dubrovnik. What happened after that, I don't know.
21 Q. In other words, you maintained records.
22 A. Naturally, because I was in charge and responsible for those
24 Q. And Dubrovnik -- Dubrovkinja would then submit those records to
25 the Crisis Staff?
1 A. I don't know. I don't know.
2 Q. Was there a Crisis Staff in Dubrovnik at that time?
3 A. I personally don't know.
4 Q. So you don't know anything practically. You don't know about the
5 Crisis Staff. You don't know that there were any armaments in Dubrovnik.
6 The only thing which you do know is that you helped people as part of your
7 duties within the Civil Defence, taking milk to the shelter.
8 A. That's right.
9 Q. In the third paragraph of your statement from 2000, second
10 sentence. In the first sentence you say: "There was severe and sporadic
11 shelling throughout October. The JNA had actually surrounded the city of
12 Dubrovnik during this time."
13 Then you go on to say: "During this period, I was aware of
14 Croatian citizens taking their speedboats and picking up small armaments
15 from one of the islands. These armaments, including uniform and food,
16 were being smuggled in."
17 What is this, Mr. Vlasica?
18 A. You are perfectly aware of the fact that in October there was set
19 up a detachment of armed ships in the area of Dubrovnik. So these lads
20 who were within this fleet of armed ships, which I only found out later,
21 were compelled to lay their hands on as much light weaponry as they could
22 to find a hand grenade or two in order to prevent the Yugoslav People's
23 Army from entering the city.
24 Q. Mr. Vlasica, five minutes ago you repeated -- you decidedly
25 repeated several times in response to my question there were no armaments
1 in Dubrovnik.
2 MR. WEINER: I'd object, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
4 MR. WEINER: Yes. I think he's taking the witness out of context.
5 At that time they were talking about the Old Town of Dubrovnik, although
6 the question was Dubrovnik. This has been an objection I've made previous
7 in this trial, that sometimes we refer to the Old Town as strictly
8 Dubrovnik, sometimes you call it the Old Town, sometimes you call the
9 whole area Dubrovnik, sometimes you refer to it as "the city" and
10 sometimes you say "the town." If the language could be used when you're
11 questioning about Dubrovnik, if the whole municipality, use "the
12 municipality"; if it's strictly on the Old Town use "the Old Town," but
13 phrases have been used on several witnesses that it becomes unclear what
14 exactly we're speaking about. All those questions at the time were
15 concerning the Old Town, even though the next phrase -- the next question
16 was "Dubrovnik."
17 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'm sorry, but I have to
18 say my colleague is absolutely misusing his right to raise an objection
19 and is doing something which he shouldn't be doing because up to this
20 point you have been hearing us ask these questions. When I ask about
21 "Dubrovnik," of course this refers to the entire city. If I'm
22 particularly interested in the Old Town area, I underline that
23 specifically. And people from -- of Dubrovnik who come here to testify
24 understand this very well, whereas what my colleague is doing right now is
25 to hint to the witness who is listening to this debate of ours, and
1 assisting him in replying to my question when I actually pointed to the
2 contradictory nature of his statement, and I suppose that of course now
3 the witness shall give a reply along the lines of the Prosecutor's
4 objection, and this is something which is really inappropriate.
5 MR. WEINER: May I respond to that one, Your Honour?
6 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, you're half right and half not right.
7 If Mr. Weiner was doing as you suggest, you are correct, but I've got to
8 say it has not been clear to me whether you were speaking of Dubrovnik as
9 the municipality, the greater area, or the Old Town, and that is a
10 confusion that I have seen has affected the evidence of more than one
11 witness so far. So that in that respect, Mr. Weiner is well justified.
12 I think we have drawn attention to this difficulty at this point.
13 You may carry on with your questioning now, and we will take into account
14 what you have said as we evaluate the evidence of the witness. Thank you.
15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
16 Your Honour, on page 45, line number 10, you can verify what I've
17 just said. To my question -- to my question, "Do you have any weapons?" -
18 and before that we had been talking about Dubrovnik - the witness
19 decidedly said, "We in Dubrovnik did not have any weapons." So he didn't
20 say, "We in the Old Town." He said, "We in Dubrovnik." The witness is
21 from Dubrovnik and he knows what he is saying perfectly well.
22 JUDGE PARKER: It may be clear to you, Mr. Rodic, but that was not
23 clear to me whether he was speaking of the Old Town or of the greater
24 municipality. You see the problem?
25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the municipality of
1 Dubrovnik is the entire city of Dubrovnik including the Old Town. The Old
2 Town is not separate. It is just one entity within the larger entity of
3 the municipality of Dubrovnik.
4 JUDGE PARKER: I'm aware of that, Mr. Rodic. I am aware of that.
5 The point I'm making is that so much in this case depends on a distinction
6 between the Old Town itself and the greater area which is Dubrovnik. A
7 lot of the questioning can be understood to mean one or the other, and
8 it's not clear at that time which is intended. The questioner may mean
9 one thing; the answer may be intended to mean the other. So it is a
10 matter which you need to keep in mind when you are asking questions. And
11 when something is critical to your case, whether the witness is speaking
12 of only the Old Town or the whole of Dubrovnik, I think you need to be
13 careful in the way you question so that the answer is unmistakably one or
14 the other.
15 I've just indicated to you that an answer which you got from this
16 witness which you referred to, to your mind was unmistakably the whole
17 municipality. In my mind, I wasn't clear which the witness meant.
18 I think --
19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Very well, Your Honour.
20 JUDGE PARKER: -- all counsel should watch that.
21 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I will try to clarify it
22 in the best possible way.
23 Q. Mr. Vlasica, since you were born in Dubrovnik, grew up in
24 Dubrovnik, spent all your time in Dubrovnik, when we say "the municipality
25 of Dubrovnik," can you explain to us what it all includes.
1 A. The municipality of Dubrovnik encompasses the entire area down
2 from Debeli Brijeg to Metkovic.
3 Q. When we say Debeli Brijeg, that is at the border with the Republic
4 of Montenegro, and before Debeli Brijeg there is Mokosica, Konavle and
5 other areas that all belong to the municipality of Dubrovnik?
6 A. That's right, that's right.
7 Q. And when we say "the town of Dubrovnik," can you give us a more
8 precise border of that urban area.
9 A. When we say "town," we know what we mean by "town." We mean the
10 Old Town of Dubrovnik. And when we say "Dubrovnik," then we mean a
11 broader area.
12 Q. When you say "the town of Dubrovnik," what are you referring to?
13 A. I told you. When we say "the town."
14 Q. If you meet a German person and if he asks where you're from, do
15 you say that you're from the Old Town or do you say that you're from
17 A. I told you very nicely. As far as we down there are concerned,
18 that is one thing. But if I were talking to a German or somebody else, I
19 would of course say, "I come from Dubrovnik." But as far as we, the local
20 population are concerned, we know full well what the town is, the Old
21 Town, and what the entire town of Dubrovnik is.
22 Q. Could you please explain to me what the town of Dubrovnik is,
24 A. The town of Dubrovnik is the entire area from Kantafiga to
1 Q. The Hotel Belvedere is to the east and Kantafiga is to the west.
2 Can you put this in a more specific context?
3 A. That's the town of Dubrovnik.
4 Q. What goes on after Kantafiga?
5 A. Sustjepan, Mokosica, et cetera, but this was the town of
7 Q. And when we say "the Old Town"?
8 A. Of course the Old Town is within the walls, the ramparts.
9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, has this been clarified
10 sufficiently now?
11 JUDGE PARKER: For this witness, yes. Whether other witnesses
12 understand it the same way is going to be a difficult question, though.
13 You'll have to be alert to the problem throughout the trial.
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Mr. Vlasica, can we repeat this now, bearing in mind what we
16 discussed just now? Were there any weapons and soldiers in the territory
17 of the town of Dubrovnik in the period from October to December 1991?
18 A. As far as the town of Dubrovnik is concerned, there were
19 formations of the police, and there were formations of people, of course,
20 who were defending the town of Dubrovnik.
21 Q. What kind of police formations existed?
22 A. Reserve police. That is as far as I know. I wasn't there, so I
23 don't know basically.
24 Q. What about this other part? Just a moment, please.
25 This other part, when you say "people who were defending the town
1 of Dubrovnik," tell me, please, who are these people?
2 A. These are people who went of their own free will to defend our
3 beautiful town of Dubrovnik.
4 Q. So the police, both active and reserve, have been defending the
5 town in line with their official duty, and all the rest are --
6 A. I said reserve. I did not say active police. That is number one.
7 And as for other people who joined up, of course it was of their own free
9 Q. Mr. Vlasica, you said the reserve police, that's true. But tell
10 me, then, what did the active police do in Dubrovnik? Were they on
11 vacation or were they engaged?
12 A. As far as I'm concerned, I don't know anything about that.
13 Q. How come you know about the reserve police, then?
14 A. Through conversations with my friends I learned that people were
15 called up within the police force to go out and defend the town of
17 Q. Who called up these people?
18 A. I don't know. They didn't tell me that. I did not go that far in
19 my questions. I wasn't interested in that.
20 Q. You do know how a reserve force operates and what the principles
21 involved are. Did they receive call-up papers to report there?
22 A. I know all of this about the reserve force, and I know what you're
23 trying to ask me, but as far as this is concerned in particular, to tell
24 you the truth, I really don't know who called them, how they were
25 deployed, where they were deployed. Personally, I was not in that context
1 and I was not interested in that because I had other things to do, and
2 that's it.
3 Q. What did you do from 8.00 a.m. until the end of the day?
4 A. My friend, I was in shelters.
5 Q. Which shelter?
6 A. At Babin Kuk, at the house of the Karaman family. Believe me, in
7 a room of about 20 square metres, 4 by 5 metres, there were 22 of us. And
8 you should see what it's like, being in a room like that and waiting for a
9 shell to hit you.
10 Q. In that period, did you use any other shelter?
11 A. When I would go to work and if the town of Dubrovnik was being
12 shelled very heavily, if I could not, therefore, take my car from the Old
13 Town to Lapad, then I would seek shelter in the Old Town. Then I would
14 not go immediately. I would leave only if I could leave, and I would stay
15 there if I had to stay.
16 Q. If I understood you correctly - and of course correct me if I'm
17 wrong - while you were in the Old Town, you went to a shelter only if that
18 was possible for you, that is to say if there was no danger of something
19 hurting you between the shop and the shelter.
20 A. When we would close the shop at 8.00, I would go to the shelter in
21 Revelin or at St. John's Fort. Of course we sat there, talked about all
22 sorts of things. We listened to the news. And when it became possible
23 for me to leave the Old Town, when the shelling was over, then I would
24 take my car and go to Babin Kuk, because my family was still there.
25 Q. Did that happen every day in the Old Town while you were working?
1 A. No.
2 Q. How many times did this happen in this period between October and
3 December 1991?
4 A. Believe me, during those two months while I worked, as far as I'm
5 concerned and my comings and goings, I don't know exactly how many times I
6 stayed in town, but not very many times, because from 8.00 in the morning
7 onwards, I could go back.
8 Q. Since this was only a few times over those two months, as you
9 said, I would like to know what you did then between 8.00 a.m. until
10 midnight on such days. What did you do? Did you only sit in that room at
11 Babin Kuk?
12 A. What else? We sat there. We talked. We tried to function as
13 best we could. There were young children there. What could we do? We
14 couldn't take walks because we had no idea when the shelling would start.
15 So we did not want to risk anything. We were there in the shelter, in
16 front of the shelter. We would not move away from the house more than
17 five metres.
18 Q. All right. Now I would like to ask you to explain to me what I
19 read out to you a short while ago, what had to do with the month of
20 October. Namely: "I know that during this period Croatian citizens took
21 their speedboats and picked up small arms from one of the islands. These
22 arms, including uniforms and food, were being smuggled in."
23 Could you elaborate on that a bit?
24 A. As far as I know, there was a detachment of armed boats which went
25 during the night to Kalamota and from Kalamota to Lopud, because near
1 Dubrovnik there was a formation of armed ships of the Yugoslav People's
2 Army. Those young men were so brave and they went there and they brought
3 small weapons - rifles, hand grenades and things like that - because we
4 needed that for the defence of the town of Dubrovnik. And ammunition, of
5 course. Because we did not have anything. Had we had the weapons that
6 were in the town of Dubrovnik until 1990 belonging to the Territorial
7 Defence, we certainly wouldn't have needed that. But since we had nothing
8 except for our personal weapons, hunting weapons, carbines that we
9 ourselves had, we the citizens of the town of Dubrovnik, we gave that to
10 the reserve force so they could use that. This was certainly needed by
11 the defence, and that is my answer, what we went to get and what we
13 Q. Tell me, how do you know about this secret information and secret
15 A. Well, you know, quite a bit of time went by before I made my
16 statement in 2000, and believe me, over those ten years or so, I found out
17 quite a few things that had happened, about quite a few things that had
18 happened, so I learnt about that too.
19 Q. When you say "we, the citizens for the defence," do you include
21 A. I said that I personally was not anywhere until the 3rd of
22 February, 2003 [sic]. I was not in any formations as far as the military
23 is concerned, and I did not have any contact with weapons.
24 Q. Tell me, were there any Croatian troops at Babin Kuk?
25 A. As far as I saw myself, there weren't any at Babin Kuk.
1 Q. Did you hear of any presence of Croatian troops at Babin Kuk?
2 A. I did not hear about any such thing myself.
3 Q. What happened afterwards with these weapons and uniforms that were
4 smuggled in on speedboats? Who was this distributed to?
5 A. As far as I heard, this went to the front line, the defence line
6 at Sustjepan, Srdj, and Belvedere.
7 JUDGE PARKER: Could I just intrude to ask, were you called up for
8 reserve service in 2003 or 1993?
9 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'm sorry. 1993.
10 JUDGE PARKER: I remembered you saying that earlier, and then you
11 answered Mr. Rodic a moment ago 2003. Thank you.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I am sorry. I just
13 made a mistake.
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Mr. Vlasica, in that period, did you move about Gruz?
16 A. No, because it was very dangerous.
17 Q. Tell me, you said that the Zagreb Hotel is about 200 metres away
18 from your place of residence in 1991.
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. What was there at the Zagreb Hotel?
21 A. To tell you the truth, I don't know.
22 Q. Did you perhaps hear that the staff for the defence of the town of
23 Dubrovnik was there, Nojko Marinovic?
24 A. That's what you said, not me.
25 Q. Have you heard of Nojko Marinovic?
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Can you tell me what you heard?
3 A. I heard that Nojko Marinovic was released from the Yugoslav
4 People's Army, that he was a commander in Trebinje, and that he came to
5 the Croatian side. As a person who was very knowledgeable, as far as
6 military matters were concerned, he stood in the defence of the town of
7 Dubrovnik, and the only thing I can say is "Thank you."
8 Q. Was he in charge of the defence of Dubrovnik?
9 A. Yes. From what I heard, he was.
10 Q. What forces did he use to defend Dubrovnik?
11 A. That I don't know. I don't know what formations he had, what size
12 they were.
13 Q. Did you hear about Captain Cengija?
14 A. I heard later that Captain Cengija had been a police commander,
15 that he was a police commander after the war ended.
16 Q. Did you hear that he was in command on Zlatni Potok and earlier at
18 A. No, that I didn't hear. I don't know that.
19 Q. Did you hear perhaps that the Civil Defence staff was at the Hotel
21 A. I don't know that. That's what you are saying. I really kept to
22 myself and sought to survive, minded my own business.
23 Q. Is this still a military secret, Mr. Vlasica?
24 A. No, it is not a military secret. I'm telling you what I do know.
25 Q. Did you hear about Zuljevic Aziz?
1 A. No.
2 Q. Do you know where the Palma was?
3 A. Yes, of course, I know very well. I pass by it every day.
4 Q. Do you know that the Crisis Staff of the police was there?
5 A. No.
6 Q. You saw no one there?
7 A. Well, I did see the reserve police there, but I don't know what
8 they did there. It was out of my competence, was not for me.
9 Q. But you did see the reserve police around the Vila Palma?
10 A. Yes, I did see them, but it was none of my business.
11 Q. Were there any HOS forces in the October to December 1991 period
12 in the town of Dubrovnik?
13 A. In the town of Dubrovnik, as I heard that there were HOS forces,
14 but I didn't see them personally.
15 Q. Were there HOS members in the Old Town?
16 A. As for the Old Town, I claim and maintain that in the Old Town
17 until the time I was wounded, I had never seen any HOS formations nor any
18 other army within the walls of the Old Town.
19 Q. Tell me, where was the Territorial Defence headquarters?
20 A. I don't know.
21 Q. Do you know Jadranko Delas from the Secretariat for National
22 Defence of Dubrovnik? And do you know that they used Dubrovkinja trucks,
23 that of your firm, in other words, to bring armaments and ammunition to
24 the port of Gruz which was then deposited between the berths number 9 and
25 10 in the warehouse?
1 A. That is what you are saying. I don't know anything about it.
2 Q. Did you hear anything about it?
3 A. No.
4 Q. When you mentioned the large-scale attack and shelling in November
5 1991 and the attack on the Gruz port, were there any loud explosions in
6 the Gruz harbour?
7 A. At that time, I was at Babin Kuk, and I was observing this from
8 the house in which I was staying. And believe you me, what I did see was
9 really horrendous. The entire harbour was on fire. Now, whether there
10 were explosions, whether there were things which were being kept --
11 whether these explosions were caused by goods being kept in the warehouses
12 or because of the shelling, I don't know, but I do know that everything
13 was ablaze. The coffee storehouse, the refrigeration facility, the ships;
14 everything was on fire. Believe me, it was terrible. And also, I didn't
15 want to stay very much outside the shelter because one never knew whether
16 the shelling would stop -- they would stop shelling that portion and start
17 shelling Lapad. So I didn't observe it all the time, believe me.
18 Q. I believe you, but please tell me, I'm interested in whether you
19 heard loud explosions on that occasion.
20 A. I told you that personally I don't know whether these explosions
21 were caused by the incoming shells or, as you claim, because there were
22 arms there and the arms exploded and caused the explosions. I couldn't
23 tell. I couldn't distinguish between these two, so I cannot give you an
25 Q. Tell me, did you see or hear that from three speedboats -- with
1 three speedboats they were transporting people from the harbour to Ston
2 and then were bringing back reinforcements, ammunition to town?
3 A. As regard to your question whether people were taken away, I don't
4 know. But I did hear that weapons were being brought. Whether it was
5 being brought from Ston or Kalamota or Lopud, I don't know, because if
6 every person knew the source of everything which was being brought in,
7 that would have been too much.
8 Q. Do you know Mato from the Port Authority, from the Harbour
9 Master's office who drove this hydrofoil?
10 A. There were many Matos around. Which Mato?
11 Q. He worked in the Port Authority.
12 A. Please tell me his last name.
13 Q. Do you know where the Vila Rasica was?
14 A. The Vila Rasica? Yes, I do.
15 Q. Did you see members of the ZNG there?
16 A. I didn't go to the Vila Rasica. It is to the south where I was.
17 It is on the slopes of this hill, Petka. There was no reason for me to go
18 there, I had no business going there, so I don't know what was going on
20 Q. Tell me, was the chief of the police department of Dubrovnik Djuro
22 A. Yes, I heard that that was the commander, the head of the police.
23 Q. Was a part of the Special Police Unit housed in the Old Town and a
24 part in Srdj?
25 A. That is what you are saying. To the best of my knowledge, that
1 was not the case.
2 Q. Was the Croatian Party of Rights in Dubrovnik with its unit named
3 Sokol, "Falcon," in Dubrovnik?
4 A. This is the first time I hear about it, from you.
5 Q. Was there any kind of headquarters in the municipal assembly in
6 the town hall next to the Rector's Palace?
7 A. That is what you said. I don't know anything about that.
8 Q. Do you know where the Vila Palma is?
9 A. I just told you that I did, that I do.
10 Q. How far is it from the Old Town?
11 A. Well, perhaps two kilometres, some two kilometres. If from Lapad
12 station to the Old City there, three kilometres, then I believe this
13 distance is about two kilometres.
14 Q. Tell me about the Hotel Dubrovnik President. It is at Babin Kuk;
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. Were there any Croatian troops in and around that hotel?
18 A. To the best of my knowledge, all the hotels at Babin Kuk were
19 filled with civilians. There were people from Konavle, from Zupa, from
20 the surrounding places. They were all accommodated in these hotels to
21 fill their capacity, and the rest were accommodated in other hotels as
22 well. What you are saying, I don't know anything about that.
23 Q. Were there any Croatian troops in the area of Babin Kuk?
24 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
25 Q. And in the area of Lapad, were there any Croatian troops there?
1 A. To the best of my knowledge, no.
2 Q. And in the Lokrum area, the isle of Lokrum, were there any
3 Croatian troops there?
4 A. I know that even less, frankly speaking.
5 Q. And at the Belvedere Hotel?
6 A. At the Belvedere Hotel there were normally people who were
7 defending the city. Now, whether they were in the hotel or on the
8 surrounding slopes, I don't know.
9 Q. Were there any troops or artillery emplacements on the Montovjerna
11 A. As for Montovjerna and whether there were any troops there, I
12 didn't see any personally. And as for artillery, as I told you at the
13 beginning, we were a very poorly equipped and supplied army, so I don't
14 see how there could have been any artillery but I don't know whether there
15 was any.
16 Q. Tell me, do you know which part is called the Chinese wall?
17 A. There is a part of Montovjerna which is called the Chinese wall
18 down there towards the stadium -- Stadion Hotel. There is a block of
19 buildings which was built there and is called the Chinese wall.
20 Q. Were there any military positions there?
21 A. As far as I personally know, no, there weren't any military
22 positions there.
23 Q. And when you look in the direction of the Old Town from the Pile
24 Gate, to the left towards the hill, in front of the ramparts of the Old
25 Town, were there any artillery emplacements or troops there?
1 A. Well, there may have been troops up there on the road, on the
2 coastal highway, but as for artillery, I know that we didn't have any.
3 Q. Do you know whether there had been any, shall I say, makeshift
4 bunkers, sandbags in the general area of the city of Dubrovnik? Because
5 you moved about a lot and you could see those.
6 A. Yes, there was, and this was established sometime at the end of
7 October, I think. I cannot recall with precision. I know that we rushed
8 to set these things up because we were expecting the forces of the
9 Yugoslav People's Army to enter the very heart of the city, because an
10 incredibly large number of civilians, women and children, had already set
11 out, and we expected the Yugoslav People's Army to enter the city so that
12 we erected these sort of bunkers for street fighting and for defence in
13 street fighting.
14 Q. Did you see such a bunker, for instance, near the post office at
15 Ilijina Glavica?
16 A. Yes, near the post office at Ilijina Glavica there was, looking
17 from above, or if one were expected that an army or troops would advance
18 from above, it was normal for a bunker to be stationed properly there to
19 stop them.
20 Q. Was it perhaps at the Petka Hotel too?
21 A. Near the Hotel Petka? Let me try to remember. Yes, there was
22 one. Now, I remember. There was one at the Hotel Petka as well.
23 Q. Was there one near the Boninovo health centre as well?
24 A. Yes, there was one in that section as well.
25 Q. Was there one in front of the building of the electrical power
1 authority of Dubrovnik?
2 A. There was one at the Lapad station, in front of the Minceta
3 department store.
4 Q. Was there one near the city market?
5 A. Well, truth to tell, there were quite a few of them, but I do not
6 remember the exact locations of all.
7 Q. Do you remember having seen perhaps such facilities, bunkers at
8 the Hotel Adriatic, at the Kompas Hotel, in the Lapad inlet, at Babin Kuk?
9 A. Well, frankly speaking, I did not move around town a lot. From
10 where I lived, actually apart from the route which I normally took to go
11 and to return, that was it. I didn't move about town to go about town a
12 lot, and I cannot tell you with precision whether there were such
13 facilities or not. Of course bunkers had been established for defence
14 purposes. If the army were to enter the town, the Yugoslav People's Army,
15 that is, on the next day, we of course intended to defend ourselves as
16 best as we could, but where they were and what type of bunkers they were,
17 I can't tell you. I can only tell you that I saw some of them en route
18 from Babin Kuk to where I was and back as I drove my car. Later I took
19 the other route, via Boninovo, so this is all I can tell you on the
21 Q. Do you know Tomo Djordjevic who lives near the Elita Vila?
22 A. This is the first time I hear about him.
23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Will Ms. Usher please just give the
24 witness this photograph.
25 MR. WEINER: Excuse me, Your Honour. Is that an exhibit or is
1 this -- is this an exhibit? Have you got copies for --
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Yes, my learned colleague. We will
3 see whether we will be exhibiting this, if the need arises.
4 Q. Mr. Vlasica, is this perhaps you on this photograph?
5 A. No. I don't know who this is. It doesn't look like me at all.
6 Q. This photograph was taken some 12 or 13 years ago, in 1991.
7 A. Well, it's definitely not me.
8 Q. Well, take the photograph in your hand and take a closer look at
10 A. No. No, this is definitely not me. This couldn't be my profile,
12 Q. All right. Please be so kind as to return the photograph to me,
13 Ms. Usher, and I thank you.
14 A. Thank you.
15 Q. Can you tell me whether the Croatian army undertook any operations
16 in the period October to December 1991 from the area of the city of
18 A. Well, I have to say again that we didn't have any weaponry to
19 speak of, and undertaking operations implies an activity involving larger
20 scale weapons. I tell you that we only had small arms, short-barrelled
21 arms, in fact. And now whether they undertook operations in terms of
22 opening their own pistols or carbines towards you - and I apologise, I
23 don't mean you, I mean the Yugoslav People's Army - I don't know that.
24 But as for artillery, I know that there were no such operations.
25 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Can I ask Ms. Usher, then, to show the
1 witness this photograph.
2 Q. So what you are saying, they just had this infantry, small arms,
3 light arms; right?
4 A. Mr. Rodic, to the best of my knowledge and what I was able to
5 learn was this, and this is what I say, what I know.
6 Q. Are you perhaps familiar with this?
7 A. What I can say is that I -- that this is a mortar.
8 Q. This mortar was emplaced in Bogisica Park. Had you ever heard,
9 did you see any mortars of the Croatian artillery there?
10 A. Mr. Rodic, as for Bogisica Park, it is not en route from where I
11 -- on the route which I took to go to and leave the Old Town. It was
12 someplace around the medical school.
13 What was there? I think you know better. I personally didn't see
15 Q. Did you perhaps hear somebody you know bragging how they were
16 successful with just a rifle or with a mortar?
17 A. Believe me, to the extent that I was able to move about and to
18 hear things during that period, I didn't hear anything of the kind. And
19 being a civilian, I did not have access to anything bigger so that I
20 didn't know if it did exist.
21 Q. As you were in the JNA Reconnaissance Unit during your military
22 service period, in the Sabotage and Reconnaissance Units --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- and you said that you completed a specific training course
25 for --
1 A. Familiarising ourselves with weaponry.
2 Q. Familiarising yourselves with weaponry and that we were well
3 trained in the equipment used by the former JNA. Were you personally
4 interested in -- and you said that you were personally interested in
5 armaments. Now, tell me, while moving about through Dubrovnik from your
6 place of work in Old Town to the house in which you were accommodated, did
7 you ever in the period October to December 1991 able to hear the sound of
8 a mortar opening fire from that area, the Old City, the Old Town?
9 A. That's a well-phrased question.
10 Q. Thank you.
11 A. Whether I heard it, yes, I certainly heard it. But whether it was
12 fire being opened from Bogisica Park or from a section of Zarkovica, I
13 don't know. And as I live in Lapad, the spreading of sound was something
14 that one couldn't actually distinguish. One couldn't tell whether it was
15 from Bogisica Park or from above the Old Town. And Zarkovica is above the
16 city. It is only normal for these sounds to refract. So would you be
17 able to tell whether the shooting took place from Bogisica Park or from
18 Zarkovica? I certainly couldn't tell at that time from where the shooting
20 Q. Tell me, is Bogisica Park towards the Old Town?
21 A. Well, Bogisica Park is on Ilijina Glavica, and it is in the
22 direction towards the Old Town. It is not in the direction of Lapad but,
23 rather, in that of the Old Town.
24 Q. And how far is it, approximately, from the Old Town?
25 A. Well, it is up there near the -- passed the Hotel Imperijal and up
1 the hill, and if you're walking on foot, perhaps 700 or 800 metres. And
2 as the crow flies, perhaps 300 metres or so.
3 Q. Tell me, what about Zarkovica? How far away is it, approximately,
4 from the walls of the Old Town, the eastern walls of the Old Town?
5 A. Believe me, as far as Zarkovica is concerned and Bogisica Park,
6 it's, well, around there. From St. John's Fort to Zarkovica, if we said
7 this is 300 metres, well, it couldn't be more than 400 metres, as the crow
8 flies, from St. John's Fort.
9 Q. Tell me --
10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you very much. I won't be
11 needing the photograph any longer now.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Is that a convenient time, Mr. Rodic? Sorry. I
13 thought you were pausing. If you want to ask a question, go ahead.
14 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, just one question in
15 relation to this photograph.
16 Q. Sir -- sir, can you just tell me -- Mr. Vlasica, can you tell me,
17 do you know the man in the photograph?
18 A. Yes. I've seen him in Dubrovnik.
19 Q. Do you know his name?
20 A. I don't.
21 Q. Just tell me, is he wearing a uniform of the Croatian army?
22 A. Well, you can see for yourself that he's not.
23 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, thank you. We can
24 adjourn at this point.
25 JUDGE PARKER: I think the record should reveal what photograph
1 was being shown.
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is a new photograph
3 that looks like the previous one that was already marked as an exhibit.
4 However, during the break we'll try to make copies, and then we are going
5 to tender it into evidence. So it has to do with the same person in
6 Bogisica Park, which was already admitted into evidence, but now the face
7 can be seen better.
8 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. We will have a 20-minute break.
9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
10 --- Recess taken at 12.25 p.m.
11 --- On resuming at 12.50 p.m.
12 JUDGE PARKER: Could I indicate, Mr. Rodic, that it would be a
13 significant advantage if you could complete your cross-examination this
14 session. Just -- we leave it to you whether that is possible.
15 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Believe me that I will make an effort
16 to finish today, Your Honour.
17 Q. Mr. Vlasica.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. I'm sorry.
20 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Before we start, Your Honour, this
21 last photograph that we had a look at, the Defence would like to tender it
22 into evidence, and could we please have a number assigned to it? So could
23 the usher please distribute copies to all the parties.
24 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, can we see this? It was flashed at us.
25 There was no copy.
1 JUDGE PARKER: As a very special consideration as it is Friday,
2 Mr. Weiner, you may see the exhibit, yes.
3 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if my learned friend
4 doesn't realise it himself, this comes from P66. So it comes from the
6 JUDGE PARKER: I think Mr. Weiner has been shown a black and white
8 MR. WEINER: Colour.
9 JUDGE PARKER: Oh, you've got the colour, right.
10 MR. WEINER: No objection. Thank you.
11 JUDGE PARKER: It will be received.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As D37.
13 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Vlasica, so during this period of time in the period between
15 October and December 1991, did you see in the territory of the town of
16 Dubrovnik a car or, rather, a vehicle on which a three-barrelled gun was
17 placed, Hispano?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Did you see one with a mortar mounted on it?
20 A. No.
21 Q. Have you heard of any such thing?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Did you see a truck on which the word "Kobra" is written and there
24 is camouflage painting on it?
25 A. No.
1 Q. Did you see or hear that in the area of the park of Gradac there
2 was some Croatian artillery?
3 A. I never heard of this; I never saw this.
4 Q. Tell me, was there any civilian police in the Old Town?
5 A. There were no uniforms. There wasn't any civilian police either.
6 Q. Was there any military police?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Did it happen sometimes that Croatian soldiers would come to your
9 store to buy something?
10 A. As for the Croatian army, whether they came into the Old Town,
11 they were not allowed to enter the Old Town.
12 Q. And who had forbidden this?
13 A. At the entrance into the Old Town, there were reserve policemen
14 who were very strict and who did not allow any soldiers or weapons to
15 enter the Old Town.
16 Q. Why not?
17 A. Because the Old Town was a protected area, protected by UNESCO
18 flags. And it was well known that soldiers had no business in the Old
20 Q. So these reserve policemen, if I'm not mistaken, they were
21 supposed to stand at the Pile Gate, at all the gates into the Old Town?
22 A. Yes, there are three gates leading into the Old Town.
23 Q. How many reserve policemen were there at these entrances?
24 A. As many as were needed. One, two, three. I didn't count them. I
25 just know that they did not allow anyone in. I also needed to have a pass
1 in order to be able to get in.
2 Q. So this was strictly observed?
3 A. That is what I claim and this is what I know very well, because I
4 know that every time I came, I had to identify myself. I had to show
6 Q. So you never saw any uniforms in the Old Town?
7 A. I've already said that my answer was no.
8 Q. Thank you. Tell me, did the siren go off or the all-alert in the
9 area of the town of Dubrovnik, when there was shelling, of course?
10 A. Well, how could the siren go off if there was no electricity?
11 Q. You're an experienced soldier. You must have heard about things
12 that could be done by hand. You just turn it with your hand.
13 A. Yes, I have heard about this, but indeed I didn't see any such
15 Q. So there was no siren that went off in Dubrovnik in order to show
16 that there was a state of alert and that the shelling was beginning?
17 A. No.
18 Q. You were often in the area of the Old Town, and you would
19 certainly have heard about this if it had happened?
20 A. Certainly.
21 Q. Tell me, why did you not go to the shelter?
22 A. I myself told you that I worked from 6.00 to 8.00, and during that
23 time, I carried out my duties. I sold the goods that we had. If the
24 shelling would start, of course I would not stay there. Then I would
25 certainly go to the shelter. But after finishing my working hours, after,
1 too, I would go there for sure, yes.
2 Q. You said that the most intensive shelling took place in November,
3 between the 7th and 11th.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In response to my learned friend's question, you said that the
6 port in the Old Town had been shelled and that small boats had been sunk.
7 A. Yes. There were two attacks on the harbour between the 7th and
8 the 11th of November and on the 6th of December.
9 Q. We are talking about the port in the Old Town?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Did you say that to the investigators?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. I mean when you gave the statement to them, did you tell them
14 about that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Were you there? Did you watch the shelling, or did you see the
17 damage due to the shelling?
18 A. That's right, after the shelling, because believe me, I don't know
19 who would have had the courage to go into the port area then, and all
20 conceivable weapons were shooting at the harbour.
21 Q. Were you badly affected by that when you saw that the old port was
23 A. Yes. We had no food, and the population of the Old Town, in order
24 to supply us with some food, they took their little boats to the area
25 between Lokrum and the Excelsior Hotel, and they did a bit of fishing so
1 that we would have some food because there wasn't enough food. And then
2 their little boats were sunk. I heard that over 80 per cent of the small
3 fishing boats were sunk during the shelling. And also the little boats
4 that were a bit bigger.
5 Q. Mr. Djelo Jusic said here before this Trial Chamber that 80 per
6 cent of the fishing boats were destroyed in the port. Did the two of you
7 ever discuss this particular piece of information?
8 A. I did not talk to Mr. Jusic about anything. That's what I heard
9 about later, but I saw it myself when all of this was over. After the
10 11th, I myself went to the old port and I saw that quite a bit had been
11 destroyed. To tell you the truth, I am not a proper assessor in order to
12 be able to estimate the actual damage, but later on, after the first
13 shelling and after the second shelling, people said that about 80 per cent
14 of all these boats were destroyed.
15 Q. All right. You said a short while ago that you told the
16 investigators about all of this in 2000.
17 A. I said I did, but I said that the shelling took place between the
18 7th and the 12th. I said it the first time, but I don't think I referred
19 to it specifically the second time. I don't know exactly.
20 Q. Mr. Vlasica, in your statement, why is there not a single letter
21 about the shelling of the port in the Old Town?
22 A. Believe me, throughout the statement that I gave, I do not know
23 whether everything can really be put together, whether everything can be
24 put into this one or two or three hours that I had this discussion with
25 them. Of course some things had to be omitted.
1 Q. I asked you before, and you claimed that you read the statement
2 more than once. And you did not notice this? You did not add this? You
3 did not make any correction to that effect? It remained unregistered.
4 How come now, 13 years later, you are talking about the shelling of the
5 port and the Old Town?
6 A. I told you that some things were omitted. Some things I simply
7 didn't mention. Also, I said to you that as for what I did say to them,
8 that they recorded it correctly. I certainly made no mention of this
9 particular piece of information, but I'm telling you about it now. Of
10 course, it is only natural that I cannot remember everything.
11 Q. All right. Let me just tell you that in the last paragraph of
12 your statement, the one but last sentence on the first page, you say: "I
13 remember that the worst shelling took place on the 10th. The JNA shelled
14 the harbour of Gruz and the surrounding warehouses."
15 How far away is the port of Gruz from the port of the Old Town?
16 Just tell me the distance involved.
17 A. The distance is four kilometres.
18 Q. Thank you.
19 Tell me, yesterday before the Honourable Trial Chamber, you got up
20 and you showed them that on the 6th of December, you were in your store,
21 and when you heard the sound of a truck you thought that was bringing in
22 bread, that you then stepped out with your right foot. You were at the
23 doorstep of your store; is that correct?
24 A. At that moment, I certainly did not step out. At that moment, I
25 was not at the door. I heard the sound of the truck and I started moving
1 towards the door. Then I walked out, and I looked left, to my left.
2 Q. All right. And that's when you were hit by the shell or, rather,
3 the shrapnel, when you went out then, that's what I mean.
4 A. Not at that very moment. I was standing and watching. So it
5 wasn't that very moment, but it was a very short period of time, perhaps a
6 minute or two. I did not go back immediately.
7 Q. Tell me, this wound of yours, when you showed it yesterday, the
8 entry wound where your pocket is on your right thigh --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- one can say that it's the upper part of the right thigh; is
11 that right?
12 A. Yes, here.
13 Q. What about the exit wound, when you showed the inner side of your
14 thigh? Was it at a point that was lower than the entry wound?
15 A. Yes. It went this way.
16 Q. So the wound goes from a higher part to a lower part; isn't that
18 A. Yes, perhaps two or three centimetres downwards.
19 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I would like to ask the usher now to
20 place this map before the witness.
21 Q. Can you please use the pointer to show us your store on this map.
22 A. Here.
23 Q. So at the corner of that building, the one that you pointed at?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Tell me, where did the shell fall?
1 A. I said this very nicely. I don't know exactly where it fell, but
2 I think that it fell either here on the Varteks building or this building
3 here, Marojica Kaboga, here. One of these two places. I can't tell
4 exactly because I never went there to see where it had actually fallen.
5 Q. I would like to ask you now to point to your store.
6 A. It's here.
7 Q. Does that mean right at the corner of your building?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. The first building on the left that you showed now, the Varteks
10 building, how far away is it from that corner?
11 A. Believe me, my door and the Varteks door are not more than seven
12 or eight metres apart.
13 Q. Can you describe this building to me? Please point at the Varteks
14 building with the pointer.
15 A. Here it is.
16 Q. Please describe the building. What's in there?
17 A. Downstairs is the Varteks ready-made clothing boutique. Further
18 up was the restaurant of the Dubravka Hotel, the terrace of the restaurant
19 of the Dubravka Hotel.
20 Q. This terrace of the restaurant is upstairs, isn't it?
21 A. Yes. There's a bridge here from this building to the terrace, and
22 the street is not this wide; it's a very small street.
23 Q. How high up is this terrace of the restaurant?
24 A. Three or four metres. Three metres, three or four.
25 Q. Does it have a stone edge?
1 A. I didn't go there, but I think you can only sit there.
2 Q. How high is this little stone wall?
3 A. It's about as tall as the armchair I'm sitting in.
4 Q. About a metre?
5 A. No, no, less.
6 Q. In your statement, you said: "The shell exploded on the terrace
7 of the restaurant that is around the corner from the store. Since the
8 streets in the Old Town are very narrow, the shrapnel from this shell
9 ricochetted back and forth between the walls and struck me."
10 So behind the corner there was a restaurant?
11 A. Of course, round the corner. If you look at the Hotel Dubravka.
12 Of course this is around the corner. I mean, please don't split hairs in
13 terms of every little word I say. It fell nearby, so of course it was not
14 far away. If you look at it, it's only a few metres. It can't be more
15 than ten metres.
16 Q. And the height is about three or four metres?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And there is this small wall around the restaurant?
19 A. There is no wall. That's where people sit. It's not a wall.
20 It's like stone benches, actually.
21 Q. All right. So you stepped out with your right foot, and you were
22 then hit by this shrapnel; is that right?
23 A. Yes, that's right.
24 Q. Did you fall after you were hit?
25 A. No. I turned around and I said, "Kate, I was hit." I entered the
1 shop and walked for about two metres and then I lay on the floor.
2 Q. What were you wearing that day?
3 A. I was wearing jeans. I had boots that we call Canadian boots, and
4 I had jeans trousers on, and up, I had a lined jeans jacket, a padded one.
5 Q. Why did you say yesterday that this piece of shrapnel hit you in
6 the right foot?
7 A. I didn't say that. I said in the right upper leg.
8 Q. It says the right foot in the transcript. Perhaps it was
10 A. No. I said in the right upper leg. I can show it to you
12 Q. All right. And in your statement, you say: "A large piece of
13 shrapnel passed directly through my right upper leg and many smaller
14 pieces hit my feet and arms. I only received bruises from these since I
15 had been wearing boots and a jacket." Is that so?
16 A. Yes, it is.
17 Q. What kinds of bruises were these? Were these scratches? Were
18 these bleeding wounds; what?
19 A. No. These were minor bruises because the shrapnel pieces had
20 already lost in impetus by the time they reached me because they had
21 already hit the walls. In fact, I found a piece of shrapnel in the pocket
22 of my jacket, and one had hit me just above the boot, in the shin, and
23 some in the arms, but that was minor.
24 Q. So you also found that piece of shrapnel in your pocket?
25 A. Yes, a very tiny piece of it.
1 Q. And was your jacket, your parka, was it green?
2 A. Well, it is a jean jacket, which is a windbreaker. It was blue.
3 Q. And what kind of clothes was Tonci Skocko wearing?
4 A. He was in civilian clothing, and what exactly he was wearing, I
5 don't know. I know those were civilian clothes. He was normally dressed
6 like myself.
7 Q. You don't remember a single item of his clothing? Was he also
8 wearing jeans?
9 A. To tell you frankly, I cannot remember with precision. I just saw
10 this in a jiffy. This was all a very brief time and I had only a few
11 moments in which to see him. He didn't stop at the door at all. It was
12 just a matter of seconds, but I saw him well. I did see what he was
14 Q. Why didn't you make a single reference in your statement to the
15 investigator to either the fact that you had seen Tonci Skocko nor that
16 you knew that Tonci Skocko had been killed nor that you knew that a piece
17 of shrapnel had pierced his heart, as you stated? Why didn't you mention
18 this by a single word in your 2000 statement?
19 A. I told what they asked me.
20 Q. Was this not an important piece of information for you to give
22 A. To tell you frankly, had they had asked me, I would have told
24 Q. And if they didn't ask you, you wouldn't?
25 A. Why would I?
1 Q. Isn't Tonci Skocko more important than some little boat in the
3 MR. WEINER: You're asking this witness to speculate as to the
4 questions that the investigators should or should not have asked him. He
5 can't answer that, why they didn't ask him, if they considered it
6 important, if he considers it important. It wasn't asked of him.
7 JUDGE PARKER: I think it's clear, Mr. Rodic, that this matter was
8 not mentioned to be included in the statement. We've noted that, but it
9 is now given in evidence. We've appreciated the distinction.
10 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
11 Q. Yesterday you said that at your store you lay bleeding for over
12 two hours and a half and that the advice of the doctor to your colleague
13 Kate Buric was to keep you awake and not let you fall asleep; is that
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Is it not the case that, due to blood loss, immediately after you
17 left the Old Town you fainted?
18 A. Yes. It was at the Pile Gate that I lost consciousness. I cannot
19 remember the route.
20 Q. We heard that. Let's move on, please. Would you be so kind as to
21 position this map so that you are able to show us on the screen which
22 route you took in your car and to tell us how much time it took you to get
23 out of the Old Town.
24 A. As the shop is here, when he came with his car, the yellow Golf
25 here, we took the Od Puca Street directly this way, up to this fountain
1 here, and then we exited on Pile.
2 Q. So how much time, approximately, did it take you from the store to
3 reach the Pile Gate? How much time was that, roughly?
4 A. Believe me, seeing what the situation was at that time, I'm quite
5 sure that he speeded, but he couldn't have sped so much because of all the
6 material that had fallen from the roofs and was obstructing our -- the
7 street. So I cannot tell you exactly how much time it took us to get
9 Q. Did you enter the car yourself or did someone carry you in?
10 A. He carried me into the vehicle. I was already very, very weak and
11 couldn't get inside myself.
12 Q. Where did he put you, in the front or in the back?
13 A. He put me in the front seat which he had reclined, and of course
14 he lay me on this reclining seat.
15 Q. So you were actually lying in the car?
16 A. Yes, I was. And that is why I could see. As I lay there, I could
17 see these buildings ablaze and on fire to my left.
18 Q. If I understood you correctly, so you assert that in such a
19 condition, wounded, losing much blood soon after -- and soon after you
20 left the Old Town you had also fainted, you were nevertheless speeding
21 through the Old Town in order to save your life, and you managed to
22 register all the damage that you indicated in response to the Prosecutor's
23 questions; is that so?
24 A. First of all, I was not bleeding any more because the blood loss
25 had been staunched. And secondly, I'm quite sure and I claim that I saw
1 what I saw in terms of damage. I didn't see the actual damage on the
2 external walls in terms of how much of damage there was. What I did see
3 was that I -- were houses burning. It was only two months later when I
4 returned to the Old Town that I saw what we had lost.
5 Q. Mr. Vlasica, don't you remember that yesterday you said that you
6 saw the statue of St. Joseph hit when you were leaving the Old Town as you
7 were being driven in this car? Do you remember?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Excuse me. I haven't finished. Do you remember then that you
10 also saw Onofrio's fountain as being hit?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you saw all this from the car?
13 A. Yes. Yes. It was only normal. But if you take into
14 consideration, if you think about it, one could see it.
15 Q. Why do you not make a single reference to this in your statement
16 from 2000?
17 A. I repeat: I told them what they asked me.
18 Q. And at hospital, were you -- did they give you a transfusion?
19 A. Yes, they did, but how much blood I received, I really cannot
20 recall. I only know that Dr. Bogdanovic told me, "Ivo, everything will be
21 all right." And I know that the drip was by my side.
22 Q. Let us please -- will you please shorten your answers.
23 A. Yes, I will.
24 Q. In your statement, you state the following on page 2, the
25 penultimate paragraph, you say: "When I arrived at the hospital, they
1 x-rayed my leg to see if the bone had been damaged. They subsequently
2 gave me a blood transfusion and bandaged my leg up. After five or six
3 days, they stitched up my wound."
4 And you stayed in the hospital until the 21st of December, 1991.
5 Is this, what you stated here, correct?
6 A. Yes, it is correct.
7 Q. Do you also remember whether you received any anti-tetanus shots
8 or some antibiotics?
9 A. I was given some injections. I remember Dr. Mahanitoni [phoen]
10 came every morning. They cleaned, of course, my wound, and it goes
11 without saying that I did receive some injections in the thigh.
12 Q. Do you remember how many of these injections you had to be given?
13 A. No, I don't remember that.
14 Q. Was it more than five?
15 A. I don't know. I don't remember. How can you ask me these things?
16 I can't recall such stupid things.
17 Q. Mr. Vlasica, this is not stupid. This is your life we are talking
18 about. You had bled profusely, so can you remember whether you were given
19 one, three, five or ten shots during your treatment?
20 A. Well, all the while, all the time which I spent in hospital, I was
21 already in a much better condition because I was -- first of all, I was
22 relieved, personally, being in hospital, and I knew that I was surrounded
23 by medical staff and that I would be helped. And believe me, they
24 undertook -- they did everything they could to properly treat my wound and
25 deal with it. And as I was otherwise generally healthy as I am now, I
1 believe that this will --
2 Q. Mr. Vlasica, I have to stop you. I have to interrupt you. You
3 are very verbose.
4 You said you received a shot in the thigh. Do you remember
5 whether you received just that one injection that you remember or were
6 there more?
7 A. There were more, I'm sure, because they must have given me
8 something against sepsis. I don't know what exactly now.
9 Q. Why don't you refer by a single word in your statement to the fact
10 that you were actually clenching gauze between your teeth, that the nurse
11 lay on top of you to hold down your arms and legs? Why don't you mention
12 this by a single word about all these efforts that you had to suffer
13 during the administration of medical treatment?
14 A. Because as I keep telling you, I only responded to questions that
15 were being put to me.
16 Q. Thank you. Now, Mr. Vlasica, I have to ask you, who forged this
17 document of the 18th of February, 2004, which confirms that you were
18 treated from the 6th of December to the 21st of December at the general
19 hospital in Dubrovnik? Do you know who falsified this document?
20 MR. WEINER: I'd object to that, Your Honour.
21 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Falsified?
22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. Yes.
24 JUDGE PARKER: Yes, Mr. Weiner.
25 MR. WEINER: I'd like to know if the counsel has a good faith
1 basis to make that claim.
2 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, reading the content of
3 this document, listening to the witness, and having seen other
4 documentation, I absolutely have grounds to contend, to assert that this
5 is a forgery, and what my learned colleague Weiner said yesterday in
6 reference to the content of this document, I can say that this is an
7 insult to common sense, because this document says: "On the basis of
8 clinical findings, we establish that this is a tangential entry and exit
9 wound of the left upper leg, rather more to the side, at the edge of the
10 upper third, and there is profuse bleeding from the wound."
11 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter doesn't have the document.
12 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] If you remember, yesterday when this
13 piece of evidence was admitted, my learned colleague Weiner, on page 92,
14 lines 5 and 6, in response to a question of yours, said to you: "Your
15 Honour, this witness, when he came here, brought this document. It is in
16 the process of translation. We can give it to the interpreters. I would
17 like him to read it or shall we give it to the interpreters to interpret?"
18 Already at that moment a document with an English translation was
19 on the ELMO. At that point, the Witness Vlasica confirmed that this was
20 his paper of discharge, and on page 93, row 15, you intervened, Your
21 Honour, yesterday, and you pointed out for Colleague Weiner that it seemed
22 from the translation that a different leg was being described than the
23 other indicated by the witness. And what I say is an insult to common
24 sense is on page 93, line 18, where Colleague Weiner says, in responding
25 to you: "Yes, I know, but that is on their left and on his right if you
1 look at him. That is from their aspect on the left side but with respect
2 to this person it is on the right side."
3 I presume, I assume, I am certain that he has explained to you how
4 a physician looks at a patient and describes his findings. Also, I have
5 lots of other objections to this particular document.
6 First of all, the diagnosis. "Vulnus Explossivum Femoris Sin" has
7 been miswritten. In the word "Exlossivum" there is a superfluous 'S'.
8 The seal, the stamp on this document which says "Directrix" is unclear,
9 but we can see from this copy that the "Directrix" has been typed over the
10 stamp. So this means that the document was first stamped and then the
11 word was typed over it.
12 In the diagnosis, underneath the actual diagnosis is the
13 prescribed therapy, where it says: "Treatment. Treatment --" and then it
14 is followed by an English word. So we're talking about a document in the
15 Serbian language where an English word is used. I'm spelling it out:
16 D-R-A-I-N-A-G-E. It should be an 'E' instead of an 'A' if we want it to
17 be correct even in English.
18 JUDGE PARKER: It's also a French word, which may have a
20 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] I haven't heard, Your Honour, that
21 they had been using French words or, rather, this one word when recording
22 medical findings in Dubrovnik in 1991, or in Belgrade or Podgorica, for
23 that matter.
24 Also, the textual description of the wound does not correspond to
25 the Latin diagnosis.
1 So essentially, our objections are the grounds from which I
2 actually derive what is my basic contention, Your Honour.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Rodic, thank you for that. I think we've dealt
4 with two matters at once; firstly the grounds upon which you would submit
5 in the end that the document is a forgery; and secondly, the basis upon
6 which you believe you may properly put to the witness that it is a
8 I think that the objection of Mr. Weiner is well-founded, that you
9 have gone straight in to simply putting to the witness that, "This is a
10 forgery; who forged it?" You may, if you had wanted to, have put to him,
11 "Isn't it the case that this was made out by somebody other than the
12 hospital?" "Isn't it the case there's something wrong with the seal?"
13 And learnt what, if anything, the witness could say about those matters.
14 But it's a matter for the Tribunal in the end, of course, to determine
15 whether or not all of the difficulties and deficiencies that you've
16 carefully submitted demonstrate that the document is either a forgery or
17 is unreliable and that we ought not to put any weight on it or that it's a
18 document that we ought not even receive into evidence.
19 I don't see, though, that most of those matters are things that
20 you can effectively put to this witness in cross-examination. He will
21 either -- well, he has told you where he has got the documents. There
22 may, of course, be errors or mistakes in a document that have got nothing
23 to do with this witness. They can be made by other people. They can be
24 made genuinely or they can be made by fault, somebody trying to deceive.
25 So those possibilities as to conclusion are for the Chamber.
1 I think you have identified very clearly the matters that you want
2 us to consider, whether or not the document might be regarded as a forgery
3 or with suspicion. I don't think there's anything further you need to put
4 to the witness about it, but if there is something, of course you might do
6 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I accept your
7 suggestions. Perhaps I rushed things a bit, but everything associated
8 with this document is, believe me, a complex process. I should like to
9 remind this distinguished Chamber that at the beginning of the examination
10 of this witness, the Prosecutor asked the witness whether he was receiving
11 any sort of emolument from the Croatian government, which he emphatically
13 Yesterday, when you asked Mr. Weiner and conveyed to him these
14 discrepancies between the statements of the witness and this document,
15 Mr. Weiner explained this to you, and I have to say to you that the three
16 documents which were given to the Trial Chamber today under marks P86, 1,
17 2, and 3 were only subsequently submitted to us last night. So
18 objectively the question arises - of course when I say this I try to have
19 the whole picture in mind - if the witness brought these documents with
20 him in The Hague, there is absolutely no reason for us to have been given
21 this first finding only two days ago and what they presented to the Court
22 today under P86 only last night. But that -- even that, only after you
23 posed that particular question and observed this problem in connection
24 with this particular document. That is what led me to express this
25 opinion about that document.
1 JUDGE PARKER: Well, thank you, Mr. Rodic. The record has
2 recorded all those matters, and a number of them had been noted by the
3 Chamber already. There will certainly be an issue of fact to be decided
4 by the Chamber in due course about these matters. But if you have
5 concluded that part of your questioning about the document, you may want
6 to go on and finish your cross-examination.
7 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour. I should like
8 to indicate in advance that perhaps I will be needing an extension of five
9 to ten minutes in order for us to be able to complete this today, and I
10 would like to ask your permission for that extension.
11 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
12 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, we've checked with the schedule. This
13 courtroom won't be used until 3.30, according to the computer schedule,
14 and so we would have no objection to finishing today.
15 JUDGE PARKER: Move on, Mr. Rodic.
16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Needless to say, Your Honour, this
17 also encompasses the question whether Colleague Weiner will be able of
18 finishing his redirect today. If he could please let me have this
19 information, because if he is, then I will give up a large portion of my
20 own questions. I will certainly do my best to finish on my part, and that
21 also begs the question of whether we will be able to discharge this
22 witness, generally speaking, to leave The Hague.
23 MR. WEINER: We will finish today. I will do what's necessary.
24 JUDGE PARKER: I would be grateful, then, if you could move on
25 with every reasonable speed, Mr. Rodic.
1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honour.
2 Q. Mr. Grbic [sic] the three documents, medical documents that were
3 shown to you today, did you bring them together to The Hague with the one
4 which was shown to us yesterday?
5 A. First of all, I'm not Grbic. I'm Mr. Vlasica.
6 Q. I apologise. Mr. Vlasica.
7 A. Second, I brought all the three documents, but to set your heart
8 at rest, let me tell you, all these documents that I have also exist in
9 the medical centre in Dubrovnik, identical documents. So you cannot put
10 it to me that these are forgery. If there have been some mistakes made,
11 this is their mistake, not my mistake.
12 Q. Do you know in what upper leg you were hurt?
13 A. I do and how, because I can feel it quite acutely.
14 Q. Why didn't you intervene when you saw that it was written wrong if
15 it is written wrong?
16 A. Look here, the way Mr. Weiner put it and the way they recorded it,
17 and of course what you are saying, what we are all claiming, when I stand
18 in front of you, perhaps what is right to me is left to you. Maybe there
19 was a confusion. Maybe they made a confusion. Maybe there was a mistake
20 in the writing. But the facts are not wrong.
21 Q. Tell me, did the directrix herself write this down for you?
22 A. No, she didn't. It was written by people who were in the surgical
23 ward. Dr. Segedin, I believe it says.
24 Q. Yes.
25 A. He wrote it and he took it to the lady director for her signature.
1 Q. Are you saying that the doctor -- and you claim that if the doctor
2 is standing opposite you and is facing you, looking at you, he would write
3 in his finding left leg because to him it is on the left, whereas in
4 actual fact you had been wounded in the right leg; is that what you're
6 MR. WEINER: It's for the doctors to state what the doctor would
8 JUDGE PARKER: That's well-founded, Mr. Rodic.
9 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, that's what the witness
10 said to me, and then I asked him to confirm it. I'm not the one who put
11 the question before he had explained it to me, rather. His explanation
12 was the one that was given by Mr. Weiner, so now I'm asking him whether he
13 is making the same assertion.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] May I say something? May I explain
15 something, rather? As far as Segedin is concerned and the typing,
16 Dr. Segedin did not write this in front of me. I asked for this two days
17 in advance in order to get it out of my documentation from 1991 in terms
18 of my wound, and I said that I had to bring it here. They wrote it out
19 for me, and I just came to take this document. So Dr. Segedin did not see
20 me himself at all. He just copied this from the documents that had to do
21 with my medical treatment then.
22 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation]
23 Q. All right. Let's not waste any time. This is clear. Is it true,
24 Mr. Vlasica, that in your statement there are some things that are simply
25 missing? Your statement of the year 2000 there is not a single word about
1 the platforms at certain -- on certain buildings that are cultural
2 monuments in the Old Town. Also, there is no mention of big flags, UNESCO
3 and Red Cross flags, that were flying on some buildings in the Old Town.
4 A. Mr. Rodic --
5 Q. Just a moment, please. I'm going to mention all of this to you
6 and then you will respond.
7 Also, that in the morning of the 6th of December, you saw Tonci
8 Skocko passing by your store and everything you said about him then.
9 Also, there is no mention in your statement that you were surveying the
10 damage sustained by the Old Town as you were being driven to hospital, and
11 also that you -- your wound was sutured in hospital without any
12 anaesthesia. Is that true, that none of these things that you did mention
13 in your examination-in-chief is not part of the statement you gave to the
14 investigators in 2000?
15 A. That is correct. I told them about what they had asked me.
16 Q. All right. Now let me ask you something else. When you talked to
17 my distinguished friend Mr. Weiner on the 22nd, did you mention to him the
18 mortar, Bogisica Park, the mortar in the park, the way in which it was
19 fired, there was sporadic gunfire, that there was a lack of ammunition for
20 the mortar in Bogisica Park, and also that they fired very little
21 ammunition from Bogisica Park and that on the 6th of December, they ended
22 their artillery support to the defenders at Srdj? Did you mention this to
23 Mr. Weiner on the 22nd when you came to The Hague?
24 A. I answered the questions that Mr. Weiner had for me.
25 Q. I'm asking you specifically.
1 A. I've answered you specifically. I have told you quite
2 specifically, and I listened to you carefully, so I answered everything
3 that he asked me about.
4 Q. I want to get an accurate answer. All this information that I
5 gave you just now -- please let me finish my question. All this
6 information that I gave to you just now, everything I said to you just now
7 about Bogisica Park, sporadic gunfire, the mortar, the lack of ammunition
8 on the 6th of December, did you utter any of that? Did you tell
9 Mr. Weiner about that?
10 A. I told Mr. Weiner about what he asked me.
11 Q. So you did have knowledge about that.
12 A. I was answering the questions that were being put to me.
13 Q. And you did not say a single word about this to the investigators
14 in 2000?
15 A. I'm telling you yet again, I told them about the things that they
16 asked me about.
17 MR. WEINER: That's not true. Your Honour, in 2000, if you look
18 at the last paragraph of his statement, he states he's in the hospital,
19 he's in the hospital with a person by the name of Zika, who was a soldier
20 who was up on Srdj, part of the people defending Srdj, and they spoke
21 about the war. He told him about the different things that happened and
22 -- during that day. As a result, I asked him about that and he indicated.
23 They didn't ask further, but there was discussion about Zika and all that
24 information comes from Zika about what happened in Bogisica Park.
25 That's not correct.
1 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I do not agree with this
2 objection, because in that part of the statement, in this last paragraph
3 that my colleague read out, there is no mention whatsoever of Zika having
4 said anything about Bogisica Park. The witness confirmed to me just now
5 that he told Mr. Weiner about what he knew about Bogisica Park when they
6 were preparing for this testimony, during the proofing. And if you
7 remember, before the break I showed the photograph with the mortar in
8 Bogisica Park, and I put questions in relation to that photograph. Then
9 the witness denied it.
10 Your Honour, in view of my promise, I would like to -- I beg your
11 pardon. I thought that I was interrupting. I thought that you wished to
12 say something.
13 Q. I would like to complete the cross-examination of this witness by
14 asserting, Mr. Vlasica, that you were not telling the truth before this
15 Honourable Trial Chamber over these past two days.
16 MR. RODIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, and thank you, Your
18 MR. WEINER: I move the Trial Court to strike that. That's not a
19 question, it was just an argument he made.
20 JUDGE PARKER: Well, let me help Mr. Rodic and the record by
21 asking the witness whether you agree with that proposition, that you were
22 not telling the truth in your evidence.
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, when I came here, I
24 took a solemn oath that I would speak the truth and nothing but the truth.
25 What I said was the truth.
1 And as for what Mr. Rodic said about me, I can only say thank you
2 to him.
3 JUDGE PARKER: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rodic.
4 Yes, Mr. Weiner.
5 MR. WEINER: No re-direct, Your Honour.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE PARKER: I am pleased to be able to tell you that your
8 evidence is now at an end and you are now free to return to your home.
9 Thank you for your attendance and for your assistance.
10 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you. Thank you, Your Honour.
11 JUDGE PARKER: You may leave the court, if you wish, now.
12 And while you're going, could I mention to counsel that it seems
13 in view of developments and the note that I have received during the
14 morning, that it is convenient now --
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
16 [The witness withdrew]
17 JUDGE PARKER: -- as I understand it, for there to be no sitting on
18 Monday as well as Tuesday. The reason for this is that, following the
19 concern raised by the Prosecution the day before yesterday about the slow
20 progress with medical testing and the concern echoed by Mr. Petrovic that
21 this was simply taking too long to resolve, the question of the accused's
22 health, I have been told that it has been possible to schedule both the
23 urological and the MRI testing for this Monday, the urological in the
24 morning and the MRI in the afternoon. I think in view of that and the
25 importance of resolving this question of the fitness of the accused, we
1 should take advantage of those appointments, and for that reason not sit
2 on Monday. We had already decided not to sit on Tuesday. This seems to
3 fit in with the Prosecution's schedule because of its embarrassment that a
4 witness it had programmed for next week is unable to attend, and it's been
5 greatly facilitated, Mr. Rodic, by the speed with which you were able to
6 conclude your cross-examination of this last witness. That will mean that
7 your client doesn't have to come in here on Monday, and he can just be
8 able to attend to the medical appointments that have been made.
9 So for the reasons indicated, the Chamber will not sit on Monday
10 or Tuesday, and the hearing will continue on Wednesday.
11 Do you want to say something, Mr. Petrovic?
12 MR. PETROVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, the Defence has been
13 informed about this, that thanks to your intervention, the MRI was moved
14 ten days ahead. Also in relation to all these other arrangements, it is a
15 response to your intervention that all of this has been speeded up. So I
16 simply wish to thank you on behalf of the Defence for your prompt
18 JUDGE PARKER: Mr. Weiner.
19 MR. WEINER: Your Honour, I'd like to tender those documents now.
20 However, we're -- since I believe there is going to be some argument,
21 maybe we should wait until Wednesday.
22 JUDGE PARKER: The question of their admission will be further
23 considered when we resume. It's clear that there's going to be quite some
24 consideration needed. So that can be dealt with next week.
25 I thank counsel for their comments, and we will adjourn now until
2 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.56 p.m.,
3 to be reconvened on Wednesday, the 3rd day of March,
4 2004, at 9.00 a.m.