1 Thursday, 26 November 2009
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.07 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning
6 everyone in and around the courtroom. This is case number IT-08-91-T.
7 The Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
8 JUDGE HALL: Good morning to all. May we begin in the usual
9 manner by having the appearances, please.
10 MS. KORNER: Good morning, Your Honours. Gramsci De Fazio,
11 Joanna Korner, and Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.
12 MR. ZECEVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. Slobodan Zecevic,
13 Slobodan Cvijetic, and Eugene O'Sullivan for the Defence of Mico
15 MR. PANTELIC: Good morning, Your Honours. On behalf of
16 Zupljanin Defence Igor Pantelic, Dragan Krgovic, and Jason Antley.
17 JUDGE HALL: Yesterday, the Court dictated that we adjourn before
18 a matter which had been raised by Mr. O'Sullivan and responded to, I
19 believe by Ms. Korner, on behalf of the Prosecution had been definitively
20 resolved. Unless either side feels some burning need to make further
21 submissions to the Chamber, we think we have an appreciation of what is
22 in dispute between the parties, but we are not prepared to give our
23 ruling at this point. It's something that we would wish to consider and
24 the -- as soon as we have concretised the position that we take on this,
25 we would give an indication. Thank you.
1 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, the burning need, I shall say, is, at
2 the moment we are in a position where if you are not going to rule on the
3 admission of Mr. Draganovic's testimony as an exhibit, plus the documents
4 that accompany it, where are we if it's not going to be admitted? I
5 don't think it's - with the greatest of respect Your Honours - I don't
6 think it's something you can delay, because if it's not admitted then he
7 has to be called in full.
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsels, the reason why we wanted time to
10 consider the issue that was brought up by Mr. O'Sullivan yesterday is
11 that we wanted to consider carefully the implications of Rule 92 ter,
12 because the rule doesn't set out clearly what exactly the Prosecution is
13 supposed to do in these cases. It's obvious that when we deal with
14 Rule 92 bis, that is to say in situations where the witness is not
15 coming, in those situations it seems incumbent on the Prosecution to
16 bring all documents, not only Prosecution documents but also documents
17 introduced by the Defence that are adjacent to the testimonies that's
18 come in through 92 bis.
19 But then what is the situation in respect of Rule 92 ter? There
20 we could either choose to say, well, in the cases of 92 ter, the same
21 mechanism applies, the Prosecution has to bring both Defence and
22 Prosecution documents. However, Rule 92 ter really doesn't imply this
23 because obviously here the witness is brought for cross-examination. So
24 that's why we were hesitant to set out the principle because we need to
25 discuss it more thoroughly.
1 But for the moment, what we will say is that in respect of this
2 witness, his testimony is admitted and along with it the 92 ter package
3 that the Prosecution has proposed. We are then confident that for this
4 witness, the Defence will then be free to advance the documents that are
5 adjacent to these testimonies and that were once introduced through the
6 Defence counsels in the other cases.
7 So for this witness, we will just go along the way the
8 Prosecution has proposed and we will then reserve our position on what to
9 do in future cases. So for this witness, Mr. O'Sullivan, we kindly ask
10 you to identify those documents that you wish to have introduced and
11 then, as I said, we'll get back with a more principled decision.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: And may I add that, of course, as I indicated
14 yesterday, what comes in, in evidence from the transcripts will only be
15 the parts that have been highlighted by the Prosecution. That goes
16 without saying. It goes for all the 92 ter testimonies. And, of course,
17 the documents that come in are only the documents that are related to
18 those highlighted part of the transcripts.
19 I think this is --
20 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, that's news to us. That's the first
21 time you've said that. We've highlighted -- we've -- so far and that's
22 the way the motion was drafted and acceded to by Your Honours' ruling.
23 We have highlighted -- we put in all the transcript but highlighted the
24 parts that we thought were relevant, where it it's very long transcript
25 as it was in this case. So the whole of the transcript is admitted. If
1 it's not, none of the cross-examination from this would be highlighted
2 because we don't -- or not -- or very little of it because we didn't
3 consider it was relevant. So it's got to be -- and that's the way the
4 motions are drafted and that's the ruling.
5 The prior -- it's not partial transcript, it's the prior
6 transcripts, full stop. So it has to be the whole transcript with the
7 highlighting as an indication of what you should consider to be relevant,
8 and obviously we've selected the documents that we considered to be
9 relevant, and indeed Your Honours, as I say, made a considerable effort
10 with this witness because in paragraph 15 of your ruling of the 2nd of
11 October you say:
12 "The Trial Chamber in its review of the accompanying documents
13 finds that most of them do indeed form an inextricable and indispensable
14 part of the evidence they accompany, save for the involving ..."
15 And then literally there is a page and a half of documents which
16 you listed which you didn't consider to be relevant and which we removed,
17 out of what we had already selected. So with the greatest of respect,
18 Your Honours, it has to be the whole transcript plus the documents that
19 you admitted.
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: As far as we were able to establish, the
21 documents that you have proposed now to come in along with the testimony,
22 they do only relate to the highlighted parts, don't they?
23 MS. KORNER: I would hope so, yes. I imagine so. I must say,
24 it's not an exercise I've gone back to check.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: I think we checked and we discovered --
1 MS. KORNER: I can see Judge Delvoie nodding. So they do, yes,
2 they do. But the whole transcript has to go in as an exhibit. Not just
3 -- I mean, otherwise you've got -- you are going to chop around with the
4 transcript which may not make sense as to what it's leading into, if you
5 see what I mean. And also, as I say, it would exclude the Defence part
6 because that's -- we didn't highlight it as particularly relevant. So,
7 as I say, Your Honours, I think it has to be the whole transcript, and
8 that's what we have understood your rulings to be.
9 Your Honours, Mr. Smith has pulled up our original motion, and we
10 say effectively that it's a long -- we ask for the whole transcript to be
11 admitted, but because it's a long one, we've highlighted the relevant
12 parts, and your ruling simply said the transcript.
13 It was the 27th --
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: It seems as if this is subject to all sorts of
15 interesting interpretations. If we allow the entire testimony to go in,
16 then we will only pay attention and have regard to the highlighted parts,
17 so you know, whichever way you want to put it.
18 MS. KORNER: But you see the Defence, Your Honour, I think that's
19 it. The Defence may want to draw attention to other parts of the
20 transcript, so you have to admitted the whole thing.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: No, no, they are free to draw to our attention
22 the parts that they want to highlight. This whole exercise was made in
23 an attempt to shorten the amount of evidence that comes in. And so to
24 focus and to narrow down on the parts that are really relevant so that we
25 can disregard the rest. This is an ongoing struggle by this Chamber to
1 seek to narrow down the scope of the evidence to what is really essential
2 and necessary and relevant.
3 MS. KORNER: Your Honours, I understand that. I don't think,
4 however, that you are causing yourself any problem by this. You admit
5 the transcript. We've highlighted the parts we think are relevant. The
6 Defence can draw your attention to the other parts that they think are
7 relevant, but the transcript is there as an exhibit. And moreover, you
8 never know what is going to happen in the future. It may well be that as
9 a result of what happens in the trial other parts of that transcript may
10 become relevant, so therefore you admit the transcript but you only look
11 at the parts that are highlighted, simple as that.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Korner, isn't it a little bit like you want
13 to draw the Court's attention to three pages out of a book, and if you
14 hand over materially the book, you hand over the book, not only the three
15 pages, you don't tear out the three pages, but it's more or less that.
16 But the only thing that goes in is what you said that has to go in, three
17 pages of the book, and not then the book in the whole.
18 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I say this, it's not quite
19 the same thing as a book, because a book is divided into chapters. These
20 transcripts are a continuation of a witness telling the -- giving his
21 account of what happened. Although only certain parts may be
22 particularly relevant, none of it is irrelevant as such. I mean, you
23 can't really say it's completely irrelevant to any issue in this case,
24 the whole of judge Draganovic's testimony is relevant to issues that
25 arise in this case, but there are particular portions which relate
1 particularly, for example, in this case to the actions of the MUP, and it
2 is those that we have highlighted. And that's the -- all other matters
3 that go to the question of joint criminal enterprise, but those are the
4 matters we've highlighted, but you can't say it's irrelevant, as such.
5 And that's literally what I'm -- I am sorry Mr. O'Sullivan, just let me
7 That is literally what our motion said, and your ruling hasn't
8 been, and indeed nor am I aware of any other Trial Chamber's ruling that
9 has been to that effect where this section has been used of the rules,
10 that only the highlighted parts are admitted. The rulings in all, as far
11 as I am aware of, I know of no ruling any Trial Chamber where it's simply
12 been the highlighted part that is admitted.
13 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. O'Sullivan.
14 MR. O'SULLIVAN: There are with respect a number of points here
15 which are important, we submit. Now, Rule 92 ter provides that in lieu
16 of having the witness testify viva voce as a time-saving mechanism,
17 800 pages of previous transcript can come into evidence. And your ruling
18 on the 2nd of October, I'm looking at paragraph 12, where you identify
19 two witness, ST-155 and ST-198 as being irrelevant and therefore
20 inadmissible, and all the other 33 that the Prosecution tendered you
21 admit the entire transcript as being relevant.
22 Now, when it comes to what the parties do eventually with any of
23 this evidence is for final submission or submission on the evidence. The
24 Prosecution may only rely on a certain pages of the 800 pages, and we may
25 only rely on certain segments, but that's further down the road. At this
1 point if the transcripts are admitted as they are, and if your ruling is
2 that associated documents are necessary to be able to make submission, we
3 may say that person is not credible because in cross-examination in a
4 previous trial, he was shown exhibits -- Defence exhibits 1, 2, 3 from
5 the previous trial, and we say don't believe him, he is a liar, you need
6 to see those exhibits from the previous trial, so they must be in this
8 So in the final analysis, it's -- at the point of final
9 submission where the parties will choose the evidence on which they rely
10 to persuade you, one way or the other, but those pieces of the puzzle
11 must be admitted, the transcript and the associated documents. And it's
12 different than a book, Your Honour, in this sense. In fact your
13 guide-lines on the book say that a book, the relevant pages of a book may
14 come in, and it may be a concise controlled package, it may be. A
15 transcript is different. This is this -- these people's -- witness's
16 testimony is in fact the direct, the cross-examination, and judges
17 questions from those previous proceedings, and we need to have that to be
18 able to make submission to you in the end.
19 [Trial Chamber confers]
20 [Trial Chamber and legal officer confer]
21 JUDGE HALL: Counsel, prudence dictates that we adjourn now so
22 that we can give you guide-lines by way of a ruling before we proceed
23 further with the witness who isn't present in the box.
24 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honours, can I just say this, with the
25 greatest of respect, you've ruled, and we have proceeded on the basis of
1 of this ruling. And to suddenly change the whole --
2 JUDGE HALL: That is precisely why I began by saying prudence
3 dictates. We are aware that we have ruled on this matter, and we do not
4 -- we wouldn't take a position that is inconsistent with that ruling.
5 But we don't want to be placed in a position of having to further clarify
6 what we thought had been clarified earlier.
7 You want to assist, Mr. O'Sullivan.
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: One final matter in relation to that is our
9 request for consideration of the 9th of October. Thank you.
10 --- Break taken at 9.30 a.m.
11 --- On resuming at 10.25 a.m.
12 JUDGE HALL: If counsel has deduced that our delay in resuming in
13 taking the Bench again was due to the complications of this issue, they
14 are correct. Judge Harhoff will give our conclusion.
15 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. The Chamber's ruling is the
16 following: The testimony of this witness and of 92 ter witnesses in the
17 future are admitted in their entirety. The Prosecution is required to
18 highlight the parts of the testimony that they wish to draw particularly
19 attention to, and they are required also to select the relevant documents
20 that were admitted into evidence in the previous trials through the parts
21 that have been highlighted.
22 The Defence is free to put to the witness any other document that
23 was admitted through this witness in the earlier testimony, and they are
24 thus not limited to only using the documents that have been selected
25 through the -- through the selection made by the Prosecution.
1 We think this decision is in conformity with the Chamber's
2 earlier ruling of 2nd October, and we are ready to proceed from here.
3 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Just to make sure we've understood, in regard to
4 the Defence, if a document has been put to the witness in the previous
5 trial, there's no need for us to do this again, is there? He has already
6 testified about a previous document, it seems that 92 ter is designed to
7 save court time and not to have us repeat an exercise that has been done.
8 In relation to this witness he was cross-examined for three and a half
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. O'Sullivan, the purpose of this exercise, you
11 will recall, is to narrow down the scope of the evidence that comes in.
12 We can do this in various ways. As far as the Prosecution is concerned,
13 because they are waiving the right to examine in chief by choosing to
14 introduce this witness through 92 ter, we are requiring the Prosecution
15 to identify those documents that they seek to have admitted along with
16 the testimony.
17 The Defence still has the freedom of cross-examining. Now, if
18 the Defence were allowed to just insist that all documents introduced
19 through this witness in the earlier trial were to be admitted, then that
20 would defeat the purpose of Rule 92 ter and would certainly defeat the
21 struggle that this Chamber is trying to have in order to limit the
22 evidence to what is necessary and relevant. That's why the Chamber
23 thinks that if the Defence wishes to have a particular document
24 introduced into evidence and admitted into evidence in this trial, then
25 they have to put it to the witness. Just as they would have to do it in
1 any other cross-examination.
2 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Your Honour, we are certainly not prepared to
3 proceed on that basis. We haven't prepared the cross-examination of this
4 witness or any other 92 bis [sic] witness on that basis. The assumption
5 has been, your rulings have been, that the -- well, Your Honour, yes, we
6 are suffering great prejudice if we have to decide by noon today which of
7 the three and a half days of testimony from Brdjanin documents which are
8 -- which we may not even have access to at this point on the basis of
9 your ruling today after two months of trial. That puts us in a very
10 serious position. Tremendous burden. The position is that in lieu of
11 having this man come for 11 days, which he could have come for 11 days
12 had he been viva voce, in which case there would have been a complete
13 repetition of what Ms. Korner asked him and what the Defence would have
14 put to him if he were viva voce. He is not, he is 92 ter, and that he
15 has adopted his 92 ter transcripts as giving -- he would give the same
16 answers here as he did several years ago. And that's the basis for his
17 admission of his testimony, and our cross-examination is not necessary,
18 it's a time saving device. Please don't put the emphasis on reducing the
19 scope of the number of exhibits. That's unfair to us. We have assumed
20 that what he was cross-examined on in Talic and Brdjanin is the basis for
21 the truth and relevance of what he will -- has adopted yesterday in this
22 court. And it's a time-wasting exercise to even go through the process
23 of showing him the same documents that were used by the Defence in the
24 previous trial. Not to mention the fact that we are not in a position to
25 do that.
1 And I believe what I'm recounting here is completely consistent
2 with the practice of this Tribunal in all previous cases under 92 ter.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Does 92 ter say that the prior testimony and
4 evidence can be admitted in whole or in part?
5 MR. O'SULLIVAN: With respect, that is not what it says. It says
6 that the evidence of the witness may be in whole or in part his previous
7 testimony. This is what I mean. The witness can adopt his previous
8 testimony, the statement of the transcript, and say I would answer the
9 same way today as I did then. And there can be no further questions from
10 the Prosecution. His evidence is in whole, his previous statement. It
11 can be in whole or in part because then he can be asked further questions
12 as has been done here. So once the previous statement or transcript is
13 admitted, if in fact we take it one step further, Judge Delvoie, we've
14 seen witnesses correct, bring modifications to their previous statement,
15 which again suggests that that is his testimony then or is his evidence
16 -- under 29 ter, his evidence, then, is the previous statement plus the
17 corrections he made in court. And typically there's no need for any
18 further questions unless the party calling that witness determines that
19 they want to add additional questions. So the phrase in whole or in part
20 refers to his evidence, which may be in whole, that statement; or in
21 part, oral and --
22 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. O'Sullivan, there has to be a reasonable and
23 a practical way of doing this. If your suggestion is that each and every
24 document admitted into evidence in the earlier trial through this witness
25 must come in and also be admitted into evidence in this trial, then I
1 think that you are asking for a lot more than you really need.
2 You see that the Chamber is requiring from the Prosecution to
3 identify the documents that they wish to have admitted along with the
4 testimony. That would make no sense if we were to follow your
5 suggestion, namely that all documents come in. So this is why the
6 Chamber is of the view that there has to be a way in which the Defence
7 can indicate which documents they wish to have admitted. We can ask you
8 to put forward a list as we are asking the Prosecution to do, but I don't
9 see the need to have each and every document which may be totally
10 irrelevant to this case admitted into evidence just because of the fact
11 that it was admitted in the previous trial.
12 So please be helpful, if I may put it this way, and come forward
13 with some sort of a solution by which we can take into consideration and
14 admit into evidence those documents that you seek to have admitted
15 without necessarily having to put them to the witness. I can only see
16 one solution, and that is to say give us a list and we'll admit those
18 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Thank you, Your Honour. I'll certainly address
19 your specific question, but am I to assume that you have rejected our
20 motion for reconsideration, which we say is the proper position, as you,
21 yourself, as pre-trial judge and pre-trial Chamber said, only those
22 exhibits on the 65 ter list are admissible? And that was precisely your
23 first ruling on the 30th of September in relation to a 92 ter witness.
24 If it's not on the exhibit list, it doesn't come in. Then on the 2nd of
25 October your written decision said something different, absolutely. And
1 since early October the Prosecution has been tendering many more
2 documents that were not on the pre-trial brief 65 ter list. And that is
3 the prejudice to us. We say, if you want to narrow the scope of the
4 exhibits, we ask you to follow your pre-trial ruling which made it clear
5 that we would be put on notice of the 65 ter list.
6 Now, if with your going to -- that's the practical solution, we
7 say. But if you are going to go the other way, as you did in -- on
8 October 2nd, where you've determined which exhibits -- which prior
9 statements and transcripts are relevant, then we say -- and in fact, if I
10 can just refer you to that decision on the 2nd of October, at
11 paragraph 16, you say, "In keeping with the jurisprudence of the other
12 previous cases." And you refer to a number about the admission of
13 relevant exhibits which are inseparable from the testimony of the
14 witness. And they are inseparable from the testimony of the witness.
15 If, for example, we want to make submission eventually --
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: We are beating around the bush, I'm sorry.
17 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, how can we argue the case if we don't have
18 the relevant evidence, if only part of the relevance, only the testimony
19 is there, and not the document to support a position that either party
20 may wish to make?
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: There is an underlying requirement of relevance
22 and probative value and that has to be on -- that has to be the priority.
23 MR. O'SULLIVAN: I quite agree. If during cross-examination
24 under Rule 90 H, there are -- if the cross-examination was permitted in
25 the Brdjanin trial, we have to assume that the Bench was able to
1 determine that the questions put by counsel during that cross-examination
2 was relative and probative, and therefore this man has said, This is my
3 testimony. You are putting us in a terrible bind by not allowing us in
4 the end to make submission because we will not have the basis to say you
5 should not believe this person - I'll give one example - because in a
6 previous trial he was shown a document Exhibit 2D of the Brdjanin case,
7 which isn't in our case, if we follow what you are suggesting. There's
8 no burden on the Chamber to admit the documents. The parties will decide
9 in due course which aspects of the testimony we adopt.
10 I don't see -- with all due respect, I don't see a difference
11 between the 92 ter and actually having this witness testify viva voce for
12 11 days. Assume he did testify for 11 days, and the result was the
13 transcript of the Brdjanin case, all that testimony and all those
14 exhibits would be in, and we would deal with those accordingly in
15 submission. And there's no court time wasted by using 92 ter.
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. O'Sullivan, no two trials are alike, and
17 there will inevitably and necessarily be large parts of one trial that
18 are irrelevant to the next trial. The Chamber is not seeking to prevent
19 the Defence from anything. The Chamber is asking for your assistance to
20 try and narrow down the scope of the evidence that is admitted into this
21 trial. And if I may say, your suggestion that for this purpose each and
22 every document that has been admitted in a prior trial must therefore
23 also be admitted into evidence in this trial is neither helpful nor
25 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, if I can echo what Ms. Korner said
1 earlier, we do not know at this point to what extent the evidence may
2 become relevant because there are twists and turns in this trial which
3 may not follow Krajisnik, Brdjanin, Milosevic. And this person -- we are
4 relying on what the -- the parties are relying on the testimony of this
5 person, for better or for worse on either side. In the end we may have
6 to deal with that.
7 Now, Your Honour, if the solution is to say because this is our
8 position, we think that the cross-examination of this witness is
9 relevant, we do, and we can provide you, I suppose we can go -- we can
10 troll through the Brdjanin transcript and say, Here are the exhibits that
11 counsel for Talic and Brdjanin used, and we don't have any questions on
12 it, but we want you to have those documents so that when you read and we
13 make submission on those -- that testimony, that you have it.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Can't you see -- I am sorry, I'll wait for the
16 In my view what you are asking is that you want the Chamber to do
17 the work that is really to be done by the parties. You are asking us to
18 troll through all the evidence that came in, in another trial, and then
19 it's for us to select what we might find is relevant. And I'm sorry, my
20 understanding is that this is the job of the parties.
21 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Absolutely, Your Honour. That's what I'm
22 saying. We're not asking you to -- you've ruled that the transcripts are
23 admissible based on a motion filed by the Prosecution and a response by
24 the Defence. We are not asking to you troll through the transcripts at
25 all. The parties will make submissions in due course, perhaps at 98 bis,
1 perhaps at the end of the case. And the parties will present to you what
2 they say are the important aspects of all the evidence. So you are not
3 having to go through it.
4 JUDGE HARHOFF: And then -- I'll wait for the translation.
5 And then why is it that we cannot ask the Defence to present us
6 with a list of the adjacent documents that you wish to have admitted into
7 this trial?
8 MR. O'SULLIVAN: Well, we can, but our position will be -- our
9 position will be, all of them. Our position will be all. That's
10 precisely our point. Because we do not think it's fair to us to be
11 unable -- at the end of the day to not be able to make a submission on
12 the testimony of a witness who is speaking to a document from a previous
13 trial that is not in evidence in ours. Because that's exactly what the
14 consequence will be. We'll say witness X said this and here is his
15 interpretation of the document, which may be beneficial to the Defence -
16 we can't make that submission because you don't have the document in
17 evidence. Or we can say, Don't believe this witness, and again there's
18 no basis for us to say that because you have no way to evaluate our
19 submission and our interpretation of what he said, which may be based on
20 a document. That's the point.
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: If you make that submission it goes without
22 saying that the underlying document will be admitted into evidence here
23 as well. It's not that difficult. What I'm trying to weed out is only
24 the documents that have no importance, no bearing on anything that the
25 witness said during his cross-examination in the earlier trial which is
1 irrelevant to this case. There is no need for us to have to go through
2 all of the documents subsequently if the parties do not wish to rely on
3 them. I think --
4 MR. O'SULLIVAN: If we are clear on this, if that means that in
5 our final submission we can make reference to an exhibit from a previous
6 case that has not been tendered but still make reference to it in the
7 final submission, then that's fine. But that means it will be admitted
8 at the time of the final brief because that's the point at which we
9 evaluate the totality of the evidence and present our submissions.
10 JUDGE HARHOFF: If this means that in the end you will just ask
11 for all documents to be admitted, then we're back to square one.
12 MR. O'SULLIVAN: No, we are ridiculing the process at all. We
13 are trying to defend our client, and we're trying to get the evidence
14 that we will need in the end, and we don't know what that is yet. This
15 isn't a case of swamping the Chamber or making a farce of a trial, of
16 course not. It is to be in a position to make submissions based on the
17 trial record. And we say that some of these things may become relevant
18 in 10 months even though they aren't crucial now. But the man has said,
19 he's going to -- he's adopted his statement. Now, there's the example,
20 Your Honour. In a year and a half from now, there may be an argument to
21 be made based on something that this person said in cross on a document.
22 We may have to make that submission, or the Prosecution may have to make
23 that submission. It's not a question of swamping you or clogging the
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Let's hear what Mr. Pantelic has to say.
1 MR. PANTELIC: Thank you Your Honours, just for the record the
2 Zupljanin Defence adopts all submissions made by our learned friend
3 Mr. O'Sullivan because during the break we discuss this matter and
4 practically tailored our approach.
5 Just for the record, Your Honour, the spirit of the Rule 92 ter
6 from my point of view is the following: 92 ter rule is actually, how can
7 I say, a Siamese twins. It's a two bodies, two heads in one body because
8 testimony of the witness and the exhibits tendered through that witness
9 in previous transcripts is one body. And at certain stage, now maybe
10 it's not so clear, but at certain stage, it might be very important. I
11 don't see any particular reason, with all due respect, Your Honour, why
12 we cannot have all relevant exhibits tendered in previous proceeding
13 through particular witness and then at the final stage to decide which
14 kind of exhibit we shall make reference.
15 And in addition, Your Honour, please, I don't see in the previous
16 trials in case law of this Tribunal the different approach related to the
17 adoption of a 92 ter previous exhibits tendered through particular
18 witness, and his or her relevant statement. Thank you so much.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: You will appreciate, Mr. Pantelic, that I
20 mentioned just awhile ago that relevance is the key issue here. And I
21 think the controversy between the Chamber and Mr. O'Sullivan at this
22 moment is that where Mr. O'Sullivan says that all documents are per se
23 relevant, then the Chamber has a different view and thinks that it is
24 still possible to exclude a number of documents from the earlier
25 testimony that are not relevant to this case. But I think enough has
1 been said at this point at the moment. The Chamber will consider it.
2 MS. KORNER: I am sorry, may I just mention something in relation
3 to one of Mr. O'Sullivan suggestions, and that is that all exhibits would
4 come in through the final brief. We would certainly say that wasn't a
5 helpful way of doing it because then we wouldn't know in advance what
6 were admitted exhibits, whether we had anything to say about the
7 admission of the exhibits and the like.
8 Can I say this, and I do support Mr. O'Sullivan on this, in the
9 end you, the Judges, shouldn't be doing the work. We counsel will be
10 saying of the exhibits which have been admitted, now that we've seen the
11 full issues in the case, and part of the problem is we don't yet have a
12 clear idea of what is going to be an issue in the case, we say the
13 following exhibits, whether it's in oral submissions or in the final
14 briefs that we submit, are the relevant ones. So it is our job, as you
15 rightly point out, Your Honours, to indicate from the cadre of documents
16 admitted which are the relevant ones that you should look at. But if
17 they are not admitted at this stage, the stage when the witness comes or
18 whatever, then there's a problem. And so on this, the Defence and
19 Prosecution are completely ad idem.
20 [Trial Chamber confers]
21 JUDGE HARHOFF: Counsels, we have to get on with our business and
22 the Chamber has considered the matter once again. The ruling that we
23 gave in -- when we came in after having the break was that the testimony
24 in its entirety goes in, the documents that have been selected by the
25 Prosecution are admitted into evidence, and the Defence is then free to
1 put whichever documents they wish to the witness and have that or those
2 documents admitted into evidence through this witness.
3 And what we will add to this is that if by the end of the
4 cross-examination, and the cross-examination will take place just in the
5 normal fashion, if by the end of the cross-examination and by the end of
6 the witness's testimony the Defence wish to have further documents
7 admitted into evidence, then they will provide a list of those extra
8 documents to the Chamber, and we'll have them admitted.
9 If at a later stage further down the road, the Defence becomes
10 aware of a document that they would still wish to have admitted and that
11 were once admitted in the -- through this witness in the earlier trial,
12 then the bar table motion still remains an available option to the
13 Defence, then Defence is free to at that later stage to seek admission
14 into evidence of this -- into this trial.
15 [Trial Chamber confers]
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: It goes without saying that we will still require
17 that whichever document is being sought admitted into evidence must still
18 be relevant to this trial. So there's an underlying and perpetual
19 requirement of relevance.
20 Mr. Zecevic.
21 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Well, Your Honour -- Your Honour,
22 just one remark. If the Court insists on relevance as the fundamental
23 principle, then the question is why the Court allows 92 ter witnesses at
24 all. You see, where the problem is, when you admit an entire transcript,
25 it's 88 per cent irrelevant to this trial. In other words, out of the
1 evidence of the witness in the previous trial, 88 per cent is irrelevant
2 to us. 12 per cent is relevant. If we admit a whole transcript, then we
3 have to admit all of the documents as well that would be the logical bond
4 because there is a logical bond between the evidence, the transcript that
5 is, and the body of documents. If we admit only part of the documents,
6 then the transcript ultimately will have no purpose. Why accept 92 ter
7 witnesses at all? They should instead come here viva voce, 15 exhibits
8 will be shown to them by one party, 15 by another, and that's the
9 solution to the problem. Because I don't see a logical link between
10 introducing the whole transcript of a witness's evidence from a previous
11 trial and only a certain number of the underlying documents.
12 I say there is really an underlying problem in logics.
13 MR. PANTELIC: Absolutely agree, Your Honour, just for the
14 record. This is a very, very -- very professional, mindful, and fully in
15 assistance with the judicial economy, Your Honour, this approach, just to
16 swap 92 ter witness to viva voce, be focused on particular issues, and we
17 shall have a clear transcript, we shall have clear list of exhibits which
18 will assist you and the parties here. Thank you.
19 JUDGE HARHOFF: I am sorry, I think this is putting the cart
20 before the horse. While we were discussing during the break, the Judges
21 were considering actually requiring both parties to identify and
22 highlight the relevant parts of the testimony and to do so in advance, to
23 the effect that only those highlighted parts would be admitted.
24 Now, due to the intervention made by Mr. O'Sullivan and in order
25 to not cause any prejudice to the Defence, we ended up allowing the whole
1 testimony to come in. So the reason why we ended up doing that was
2 actually to come forward and meet the requirements of the Defence.
3 But still we think that the requirement of relevance does justify
4 a more careful look at the underlying documents that were admitted in the
5 previous trial through this witness and, as you said yourself,
6 Mr. Zecevic, large parts of the earlier testimony might be irrelevant to
7 this case. For those parts, the Chamber will have to do the work that we
8 still think should be done by the parties. So for the testimonies, we
9 will have to determine which parts of the testimony that are really
10 relevant, and we are assisted in this by the highlights offered by the
11 Prosecution. Those highlights have no legal bearing, they are merely an
12 assistance to the Chamber and we are thankful for that.
13 But still documents that were admitted in the previous trial in
14 parts of the testimony that really, as you say yourself, are irrelevant
15 to this case should not be admitted into this trial. And we have now
16 created a mechanism by which we think that full attention has been given
17 to the demands of the Defence. We ask you to identify documents that you
18 wish to have admitted and that you did not have time to put to the
19 witness while he was here during the cross-examination, and we will admit
20 those documents. And if that is not sufficient, then there is a safety
21 clause in that in the end, by the end of the trial you still have the
22 option of admission of whatever document that is you think should be
23 admitted through the bar table motion. And, you know, I don't think we
24 can do anything more to -- to accommodate the needs of the parties. And
25 as I said, there's an underlying requirement of relevance, so in your own
1 submission, Mr. Zecevic, it seems that a number of the documents that
2 were admitted in the previous trial are not necessarily relevant to this
3 case and should not be admitted.
4 I would like to conclude this discussion now. We have gone long
5 enough, and I think maybe it's even it's time for a break before --
6 12.05. Another hour?
7 JUDGE HALL: Yes, sit straight through.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Very well. And it's about time that we get the
9 witness in.
10 But please, Mr. Zecevic.
11 MR. ZECEVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, I'll be very brief.
12 What Ms. Korner said is really the essence. At this moment we don't know
13 what is relevant, which are the relevant portions of the evidence, the
14 prior evidence of this witness, and because of that we don't want to tie
15 our own hands by presenting only a certain number of documents, let alone
16 all the other further aspects of this ruling of yours that create a
17 problem concerning the time we need to put exhibits before this 92 ter
18 witness, and especially the bar table motion that was suggested.
19 The problem is, Your Honours, that at the moment we are admitting
20 a whole prior transcript, then that transcript under Rule 92 ter
21 constitutes an exhibit, and we want to have the possibility to refer to
22 that exhibit at the time we and the Prosecution make our final
23 submissions. All of this will have absolutely no impact on the workload
24 of the Trial Chamber. Both parties will, in final submissions or in
25 92 bis submissions, will say that we believe that the transcript of this
1 witness's evidence is relevant in points 72 and 73. The other party will
2 say, No, it's relevant in paragraphs 89 and 91. That is how we will
3 submit to Your Honours what we believe is relevant. But at this moment
4 neither we nor the Prosecution are able do this. And the Defence in
5 particular cannot tie its own hands by showing to the witness exhibits
6 that today seem relevant and may not be relevant at all tomorrow, or
7 maybe in six months because by that time that particular fact will not be
8 in dispute, something else will be in issue.
9 According to your ruling, I think we are going back to the same
10 situation that Mr. O'Sullivan had dealt with when he presented our
11 request for you to reconsider the 9th October decision.
12 [Trial Chamber confers]
13 JUDGE HALL: At this point we intend to move on.
14 Would the marshal escort the witness back to the stand. And
15 while the witness is coming in, to the extent that counsel may be curious
16 as I was as to what the position is in terms of the convenience of the
17 interpreters and the accused themselves, I am advised by the Registry
18 that we may sit through until the -- what would ordinarily have been the
19 break at 12.05, and then we will take the 20-minute break then and resume
20 for the final session of today.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Perhaps while the witness is being brought in,
22 Your Honours, you will recall my application yesterday for the admission
23 into evidence of all of the transcripts and the documents. And I --
24 JUDGE HALL: I thought we had admitted --
25 MR. DI FAZIO: I can't recall if we actually gave them numbers,
1 or whether it's necessary at this juncture or later, but ...
2 THE REGISTRAR: The 92 ter package will receive the
3 Exhibit P411.1 through P411.61.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. And in addition to that, just two more
5 exhibits. One is P117 and P358. Those two exhibits in the case are
6 currently marked for identification, currently marked for identification.
7 They've been used before with other witnesses, and they are marked for
8 identification. They are also two documents that were produced to this
9 witness during his past testimony in Brdjanin. So on that basis on the
10 basis of what you've done today and on the basis of your order, they
11 should be transformed from documents for identification to full exhibits
12 so I'd make that application, that's P117 and P358.
13 Do Your Honours follow? They are not part of the residue of
14 61 documents.
15 [The witness takes the stand]
16 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
17 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
18 Good morning to you, Mr. Draganovic, as a matter of courtesy, I
19 should explain, unfortunately you being an attorney you would understand
20 this, that today was one of those occasion in which there were a number
21 of issues which -- in which there were extensive exchanges between the
22 Bench and counsel, and that is why your resuming the stand was delayed.
23 So now we expect that we are in a position to continue. And I would
24 remind you that you are still on your oath. Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
1 WITNESS: ADIL DRAGANOVIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 Examination by Mr. Di Fazio: [Continued]
4 Q. Good morning.
5 A. Good morning.
6 Q. We need to swiftly get through this so if we confine your answers
7 and keep them at short as possible. I want to show you now a whole
8 series of photographs.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown P59.
10 Q. Do you recognise that place with the red doors?
11 A. Certainly. Those are the garages of Betonirka where people were
12 locked up.
13 Q. Approximately how far is Betonirka, those particular garages that
14 you can see in the photograph from the police station in Sanski Most
15 where you were held following your arrest?
16 A. Very close. The next compound is the police station. It's a
17 distance of about 60 to 80 metres.
18 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
19 Could the witness be shown 65 ter 2256.
20 Q. Do you recognise that place?
21 A. Yes, yes, certainly.
22 Q. What is it?
23 A. Those are, I think, those same garages.
24 Q. Thank you.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: I seek to tender that into evidence.
1 JUDGE HALL: I thought it was an exhibit.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: Not yet. Not yet.
3 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P412, Your Honours.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks. Next 65 ter 2254. Thanks.
6 Q. Okay. Now, you see in the photograph there, there's a couple of
7 buildings I want to ask you about here. Firstly, you'll see the low flat
8 building in front of which are two men. What is that place?
9 A. That's the compound of the Betonirka where those garages belong.
10 Q. Thank you. And in the distance you can see another building
11 which is, I'm not sure, at least two, and more likely, three stories
12 high. Can you see that? On the far right. What is that place?
13 A. That is the building of the police and the Ministry of Defence.
14 They are practically glued to one another, they share the same entrance.
15 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be given the pen and to mark that
16 particular building on the screen, and then I'd like to tender that
18 Q. Just mark, perhaps by circling, the building that you call the
19 police station. The military building.
20 A. [Marks]
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks. I tender that.
22 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P413, Your Honours.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. Can the witness be shown 65 ter --
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, is the witness able to indicate a
1 rough estimation of the distance between the garage and the Betonirka
2 compound and the police building.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: I thought he had done that. Yeah, 60 to 80 metres
4 he said, so ... And we'll have another photograph shortly I think that
5 will assist Your Honours in dealing with that issue. But if we can move
6 on, 65 ter 2252, please.
7 Q. Do you recognise that place? If so, tell us what it is.
8 A. Yes, I do. This is the building of the Krings Hall which was
9 also a camp in Sanski Most.
10 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, I tender that photograph.
11 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P414, Your Honours.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Can you -- the next one I'd like to show is 65 ter
14 2253, please.
15 Q. Do you recognise that interior?
16 A. That is the interior of the Krings Hall where the camp was.
17 Q. Thanks. After 1995, and I don't want a big long explanation what
18 you actually did, just answer it as simply as you can, but after 1995
19 when you went back to Sanski Most, did you have reason to go there and
20 carry out judicial inquiries and go into the building?
21 A. Since I carried out exhumations that was the building where we
22 brought the bodies for examinations and autopsies.
23 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness be shown 65 ter 2259. I'm sorry,
24 I seek to tender that particular image. I forgot that.
25 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P415, Your Honours.
1 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. The next image I'd like to show is 65
2 ter 2259.
3 Q. Now, do you recognise that particular building?
4 A. I do. That's the building of the primary school Hasan Kikic. To
5 the left very close you see the Orthodox church, this is the entrance
6 into the administrative part of the school building. There was another
7 camp there, but in the gym on the other side of the school.
8 Q. Thanks for that.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: And I seek to admit that into evidence.
10 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P416, Your Honours.
12 MR. DI FAZIO: Next image is 2257, please.
13 Q. That place, can you tell us what that is.
14 A. I think this is again the school, the entrance into the school
15 Hasan Kikic, so the previous photograph is linked to this one.
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. And I seek to tender that into
18 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
19 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P417.
20 MR. DI FAZIO: And can the witness be shown 2258.
21 Q. Have you ever seen that interior before?
22 A. Yes, I have. This is the gym of the primary school Hasan Kikic.
23 As I've already said, people were held there. That was a camp.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks for that. And can that please be tendered
25 into evidence.
1 JUDGE HALL: [Microphone not activated] Yes, admitted and marked.
2 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P418.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Can the witness please be shown Exhibit P379.
4 Q. What is that place?
5 A. This is the building of the police station in Sanski Most.
6 Q. Thanks. You can see in the photograph that the complex seems to
7 consist of two buildings. One building is the lower building with green
8 -- some sort of green features. And on the left there's another higher
9 building. Which is the higher building that you can see on the left
10 attached to the building with the green features?
11 A. This higher building that was built later was the Ministry of
12 Defence. It housed the Territorial Defence, the staff. It was the
13 military building.
14 Q. Thanks. I'd like you to mark that please, could you mark the
15 building, perhaps by drawing an outline that you call the police building
16 and we'll know then that that's the police building and that the other
17 building is the Ministry of Defence building. So just mark the outline
18 of the police building. That is correct. Just like you are doing there.
19 A. [Marks]
20 Q. Well, okay. All right. You've seem to have delineated the
21 building on the far left, and there's an arrow pointing into the building
22 on the far left. Which is the building on the far left?
23 A. That is the building of the Ministry of Defence, or as it was
24 called the Secretariat of Defence. To be quite precise, this is a shared
25 entrance into the police building and the military building.
1 Q. Thanks.
2 A. There it is. There's one shared entrance.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you, I seek to tender that.
4 JUDGE HALL: Admitted.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: With the image, that's right, with the image, yes.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P419.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Okay. Can the witness please be shown P380.
8 Q. Do you recognize that interior?
9 A. I do. This is one of the cells in the police prison. The
10 building that we just saw.
11 Q. Thank you. Now, in your testimony you gave detailed evidence of
12 how you were kept in a cell. Is that the cell -- the particular cell you
13 were kept in following your arrest, or is it another cell? Can you tell
14 us that or not?
15 A. No, this is the neighbouring cell, number 2. I was in cell
16 number 1. I know that you also have the photo of cell number 1. I
17 recognise this by the floor-boards because they are not stuck together.
18 They are divided. In my cell there was no such division in the floor,
19 and you can see the outer part of these iron doors. In our cell, the
20 window you see here was boarded up with a tin panel. In this cell it was
21 not, as far as I remember. In any case, I was in a cell with the window
22 boarded up.
23 Q. Thanks for that. Look, is there any substantial difference
24 between that cell, and I'm asking you in terms of proportion at this
25 stage, in proportion between that cell that you see in front of you and
1 the cell next door where you were? Are they essential the same, one in
2 the same, in terms of size at least?
3 A. Practically there was no difference. The size is exactly the
4 same. There were three cells in total. This is just the remand prison.
5 Q. Thank you. And you explained in your evidence back in -- when
6 you testified in Brdjanin, that in those cells there were four people
7 when you first arrived and then I think another four were later brought
8 in, plus yourself, so there were about nine people, nine men in the cell
9 that you were in of similar proportions to that one. Is that -- do I
10 understand you correctly?
11 A. Yes, that's correct. I was the fifth person brought and another
12 four were brought after me, so we were nine in this small place.
13 Q. Okay. Look at the paint on the walls, can you just tell the
14 Trial Chamber if when you were imprisoned for that period of time the
15 walls were in that condition, or were they different during the period of
16 time of your incarceration?
17 A. I have already spoken about that in detail, but I'll repeat. At
18 the beginning, the colour of the walls was approximately like on this
19 photo, but in just a couple of days it grew dark with mould and humidity
20 from our perspiration and the humidity. The walls became almost
21 completely dark, almost as dark as the floor.
22 Q. Thank you. And you've also mentioned that when you were
23 incarcerated, the window was covered or at least the window in your cell
24 was covered by a piece of metal or steel with a few holes in it, and you
25 had to take turns standing -- the men had to take turns standing to
1 breathe through holes cut into the door that appeared in the metal. Do
2 you recall that?
3 A. Yes, of course I remember. That's exactly how it was, the way
4 you described it. There was this tin panel, perhaps 2 millimetres thick,
5 hammered on to the window and in this tin panel, there were around a
6 dozen tiny nail holes, and we took turns breathing because there was no
7 other source of air except on this metal door that you see on the
8 picture, this is a picture taken from outside. But on the inside there
9 was a small hole for the door handle and through that tiny hole we also
10 took turns breathing, and the air was bad because there was a stinking
11 toilet in this hallway with no drainage, no sewage at all, so we breathe
12 that stinking filthy air through that tiny hole.
13 Q. You've described in your evidence how prisoners were taken for
14 interrogation, and you, yourself, were taken off for interrogation. When
15 your fellow prisoners in the -- who were with you in the cell came back
16 from having been interrogated in the police station, what sort of
17 physical condition were they in?
18 A. The persons who were locked up there when they were taken away to
19 be interrogated returned with visible injuries on their face, their
20 bodies, and the soles of their feet. I must say that not everyone was
21 taken out, but I think more than a half of us were, and I believe they
22 were beaten during interrogation at the police station.
23 Q. Thank you.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: I've completed using that photograph.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: [Microphone not activated] Would you like to
1 tender that?
2 MR. DI FAZIO: That's already in evidence, and it hasn't been
3 marked so we can just put it to one side now.
4 I'd like to produce now, if I may, 65 ter 3418. That's an aerial
5 shot. Sorry, I apologise, 3418.03.
6 Q. Okay. I'm going to ask to you mark this image. Can you draw for
7 the Trial Chamber the -- sorry, mark perhaps with a few stripes the area
8 of Sanski Most known as Mahala.
9 A. Yes. This is a panorama of one part of Sanski Most, of a later
10 date. We see the Sana
11 bridge. From this town bridge, this is part of the Mahala neighbourhood.
12 From here down is just one part of the Mahala neighbourhood. I'll write
14 Q. Yes. Okay. I don't want to overload this image, so we'll
15 perhaps just do one more feature that I'm going to ask you about. You
16 mentioned the Hasan Kikic school. Could you indicate, using a delicate
17 hand, the roof area so that we can see very clearly the roof area of the
18 Hasan Kikic school.
19 A. I can. Let me stress that I, myself, went to this primary school
20 and I know the location very well. It's this part, and this is the gym.
21 The Sports Hall.
22 Q. Thank you. And just so we are clear, perhaps underneath that and
23 a little distance away, just write the letters HK so that we know it's
24 Hasan Kikic.
25 A. Okay.
1 Q. Very well. Thank you for that.
2 MR. DI FAZIO: And I seek to tender that image. And if
3 Your Honours please, I'd like a fresh image of the same scene put up
4 again. So I'll tender this particular one.
5 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P420.
7 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks, can we now have the same image up on the
8 screen again, clean. In other words, I suppose ...
9 Q. Okay. Now, you've already mentioned the police building and the
10 military building and the cells. I want you to look at the image and
11 see, and we can make it bigger, and in particular I'm interested in the
12 bottom right-hand quadrant.
13 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I think that's a bit -- okay. Yes, that's
14 better, thank you.
15 Q. Now, can you mark the roof of the police building. Not the
16 military building, not the military building, but the roof of the police
17 building. Not the cells, just the police building.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Okay. And you've written there PU. Thank you.
20 A. That's the police administration.
21 Q. All right. Thank you.
22 I'd now like you to mark just the roof again of the cells where
23 you were kept.
24 A. On the same photograph?
25 Q. Yes, but again be delicate so we can see clearly where it is.
1 A. [Marks]
2 Q. Okay. And perhaps you could write just -- yes, thank you,
3 indicate with an arrow, and perhaps you can write the letters PC for
4 police cell. PC.
5 A. [Marks]
6 Q. Okay. Thanks for that.
7 And finally, finally can you indicate where Betonirka garages
8 were back then, back in 1992. They may not appear in the photograph, but
9 the general area where they appeared, where they were located.
10 A. I will explain this portion here. See this new large building,
11 it didn't used to be there before because it was recently built. There
12 was the perimeter of the construction company called Dvadeseti Oktobar.
13 Betonirka and Dvadeseti Oktobar used to be one company and then they
14 split and they divided this perimeter. That's why I'm explaining it so
15 that there are no objections later on. And garages used to be there
16 because that was the fence that divided these two perimeters. So from
17 the prison to the garage, this is the area.
18 While this was all construction company site, there were wooden
19 makeshift huts here that belonged to the construction company
20 Dvadeseti Oktobar, the Twentieth of October.
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks, I seek to tender that and one more aerial
22 shot on this which should assist. So I seek to tender this.
23 JUDGE HALL: Admitted.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P421, Your Honours.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
1 And can we just now have another aerial shot please, P3 -- sorry,
2 65 ter 341801. Can we focus just a bit further in on the exact centre.
3 Yes, that's fine. Thank you, just like that. Actually, no, can we make
4 it a bit smaller, we need to see more of the bottom. That's probably
5 better. Thank you, yes.
6 Q. Just again mark the area where Betonirka garages were and where
7 the cells were that you were kept.
8 A. The Betonirka garages were here. In this area here.
9 Q. All right. Just put a letter B next to that, B for Betonirka.
10 A. [Marks]
11 Q. And just again mark the roof, the roof area of the cells where
12 you were kept.
13 A. This part here.
14 Q. Thank you. Again just mark it PC.
15 A. [Marks]
16 Q. And finally on this one, again if you could just mark the roof of
17 the police building.
18 A. [Marks]
19 MR. DI FAZIO: And I seek to tender that.
20 JUDGE HALL. Admitted and marked.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P422, Your Honours.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: While we are still on geography, can the witness
23 be shown P107, please.
24 Q. Now, this map is not really going to enable you to do anything
25 much more than provide a general indication. But can you show us on that
1 map, if you can --
2 MR. DI FAZIO: And if the image can be made a bit bigger, that
3 might be a bit of assistance. That's probably better. Thank you.
4 Q. Can you indicate with a dot where the police station was located.
5 Make it as small as possible.
6 A. All right. Let me just orient myself. It should be there.
7 Since this here is a football pitch and the stadium, so it should be
8 right next to it.
9 Q. Given the proximity to Betonirka, I won't ask to you indicate
11 One other feature perhaps is Hasan Kikic school, can you show us
12 on the map where that was located.
13 A. The Hasan Kikic school should be somewhere here. It's very hard
14 to show it because the map is on such a small scale. But it should be
16 Q. Okay. Could you just mark that, if you would, with the
17 initials HK. Make them small, please.
18 A. [Marks]
19 Q. Thank you. And if it's possible to mark and the map the location
20 of Krings Hall, could you do that.
21 A. And the Krings, just a minute, please. It's here.
22 Q. Thank you. And if you could just write the letter K next to that
23 so that in the future we'll know that that represents Krings Hall.
24 A. [Marks]
25 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. If Your Honours please, I seek to
1 tender that image.
2 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio, we could have a problem here. The
4 witness has marked two things HK.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, I thought about that. Your Honours, given
6 that -- yes, I understand what you are driving at.
7 Q. Perhaps it would be safest, could you go back and --
8 A. I put KR for Krings.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Oh, I see. Okay. HKR now stands for Krings. HK
10 stands for the Hasan Kikic school. The unmarked dot with no letters next
11 to it on the right represents the police station. And on that basis I
12 seek to tender the image.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Exhibit P423, Your Honours.
14 MR. DI FAZIO:
15 Q. Now, you've told us that Betonirka was approximately 50, I think
16 you said 50 to 60, or 50 to 80 metres away, that order of metres. In the
17 time that you were imprisoned in the cells at the police station, did you
18 ever hear anything from the direction of Betonirka?
19 A. I was arrested on the 25th of May. Those of us who were in the
20 cell didn't know any longer what was happening outside except that on the
21 26th, there were a lot of shells falling. On the 27th during the day in
22 the evening and also during the night, we heard that from the Betonirka
23 compound there were the sounds reaching us, the sounds of crying,
24 screaming, blows, and so on. Based on that, we concluded that people
25 were imprisoned there. We didn't know that, we simply heard this.
1 This lasted throughout our entire stay. At certain intervals, at
2 certain times during the day or night one could hear moaning, crying,
3 shouting, and so on.
4 Q. Okay. And just lastly on this issue, did the metal plate that
5 was fixed over the window, did that cause problems in audibility?
6 A. No. Given that it was just plain tin sheet and the sounds could
7 reach us through it, we could hear the sound made by military personnel
8 and radio sounds coming from the military building next door. The
9 propaganda programme that was aired on the radio, we could hear it. So
10 we could hear all of the sounds around the prison. The walls are not
11 thick. It's quite a low building, you could see what it looked like.
12 And through the tin sheet, we could hear the sounds.
13 Q. Thank you for that.
14 A. If I may add this, some people were in the meantime transferred
15 from Betonirka to our cells. They came with visible injuries. On the
16 other hand, some people were transferred from the cells to Betonirka. So
17 this is how we were able to find out about what had been going on there.
18 Q. Okay, thanks for that explanation. Turn now to another topic,
19 you've testified that on the 17th of June, 1992, you were transferred
20 from the prison cell to Manjaca. I want you to cast your mind back to
21 that particular day and I want you to tell that Trial Chamber how that
22 exercise was conducted, how it happened, that you were taken from the
23 cells to Manjaca. The first question I want to ask you is this, who took
24 you out of the cells ready for your trip to Manjaca? Who was it?
25 A. I already gave evidence about this. When the cell door was
1 opened assistant chief of police appeared, Drago Vujanic, he had a list.
2 He and another soldier wearing a military uniform appeared. Drago had
3 papers on him, and he was calling out names. Drago and policeman
4 escorted me and another colleague of mine, whose name was called out.
5 Each of us had four policemen escorting us. They had weapons pointed at
6 us. We had to pass through the police station compound with our heads
7 bent down and our hands behind our backs, and we were taken to the back
8 area where the police garages are, and we were taken to the Betonirka
10 Drago Vujovic ordered me to get on the truck there. Since we
11 were colleagues, he is also a lawyer and we were close friends, we went
12 to university together, so I asked him whether he could give me my
13 papers. I was referring to the papers that had been taken out of my
14 pocket, my ID, driver's licence, and so on. And he said, Don't worry, it
15 will reach you subsequently.
16 So we were escorted by police. The police escorted us to Manjaca
17 as well. On the 17th --
18 Q. Thanks. Can I just interrupt you there. I just want a few more
19 details but just go --
20 MR. PANTELIC: I do apologise to interrupt. Maybe my learned
21 friend can clarify with witness the exact family name of this person
22 Drago that he mentioned because it's appeared to me that it's not precise
23 in the transcript. Thank you.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: I'm happy to do that.
25 Q. Just before I do that, though, just before I go back to the
1 transfer, I just want to, I'm sorry about this, but cast your mind back
2 to the period of time when you were still incarcerated in the cells.
3 Very briefly just tell the Trial Chamber during all that time that you
4 were locked up in the police cells, who guarded you and your fellow
5 prisoners? Who was it that guarded you?
6 A. From the moment we entered the police station perimeter when I
7 was arrested a member of police force asked me to take my belt off, my
8 shoe laces and so on, to empty my pockets, and he took me to a cell. It
9 was the policeman on duty. The same happened to other people. When we
10 were locked in, again we were locked in by a policeman who was on duty
11 that day whom I used to do know, as a former judge and president of the
12 court I knew that policeman, I had known him for many years.
13 The building of that prison was secured by police. They held the
14 keys. And policemen would come once or twice a day to take us out of our
15 cells. They would also bring us food once a day. They also took us for
16 individual questioning. We would be taken to the police administration
17 building and inspectors of the crime prevention police questioned us
18 there, as did members of state security. Therefore, this prison was
19 fully under the jurisdiction of the police and the same applied to other
20 facilities in Sanski Most. Krings, Hasan Kikic school, and all other
21 locations where people were held, all of them were secured by members of
22 the police station in Sanski Most.
23 Q. Thank you for that clarification. Now let's return to the day of
24 your transfer. Firstly, can you clarify for the Defence the name, the
25 surname of the man you mentioned, Drago, was it Vujovic or some other
2 A. Drago Vujanic.
3 Q. Okay. Good. Thank you.
4 All right, now you have told us that --
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, could you pause about 2 minutes short
6 of the 12.05 adjournment, there are some matters involving the exhibits
7 with which the Registry has to deal.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Can do that, Your Honour.
9 Q. Yes, the period that -- you've told us there was the police that
10 took you out of the cells and took you to Betonirka, and you were loaded
11 on to what? Buses or trucks, can you remember?
12 A. I was loaded on to a truck which was blue, mid-sized truck. It
13 was driven by a civilian, and we had police escort. Drago Vujanic with
14 several other police inspectors escorted our truck. I also need to add
15 that Drago Vujanic was the prison warden. He was the warden of that
16 prison at that time.
17 Q. You mean the police cells?
18 A. The police prison. He was appointed warden of the police prison.
19 Q. Sorry to be pedantic, are you talking about the cells where you
20 were kept when you say the police prison?
21 A. That's correct. Those cells and the Betonirka.
22 Q. Thanks. And when you got to Manjaca, who was there to unload
23 you? I don't mean physically, but to oversee the process of you getting
24 off and being herded into your new accommodation?
25 A. When we arrived there and the canvass was lifted off the truck,
1 we were ordered to get off the vehicle. Drago Vujanic held a list, and
2 he called out individual names for us to get off the truck, there were
3 also police inspectors, as I have told you, escorting us whom I also
4 knew. We were then taken over by military police who started immediately
5 mistreating us and beating us. We entered the premises, and they took us
6 to stables all the while terribly beating us.
7 Q. Thank you.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Now, if Your Honours, please, that's a discrete.
9 I've got one more topic to go which is a separate issue from this, so
10 would now be an appropriate moment for the break.
11 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, with your leave, I was informed by
12 the Prosecution today that two exhibits, mainly Exhibit P366 admitted on
13 the 18th of November, and Exhibit P384 admitted on the 19th of November,
14 should be placed under seal. Thank you.
15 [The witness stands down]
16 JUDGE HALL: So ordered.
17 Before we take the break, there is a brief ruling which the
18 Chamber has to deliver:
19 The Prosecution has sought admission into evidence of around
20 100 documents through Branko Djeric. In an oral ruling of the 26th of
21 October, 2009, the Chamber determined that it would rule upon the
22 admission into evidence of the documents after the conclusion of the
23 cross-examination of Branko Djeric.
24 Several of the documents are already in evidence and need not be
25 considered by the Chamber. They are Rule 65 ter numbers 933, 1177, 1188,
1 1220, 1319, 1346, 1568, 2334, 2337, 2341, and 2395.
2 Moreover, several other documents are subject of Mico Stanisic's
3 motion to exclude intercept evidence. These documents will remain marked
4 for identification pending the decision on that motion. They are Rule 65
5 ter numbers 1070, 2877, 2917, 3231, 3237, and 3238.
6 The Chamber has reviewed the testimony of Djeric and the parties
7 submissions as to the admissibility of the remaining Prosecution
8 documents. It finds that the documents are admissible and therefore
9 decides to admit them into evidence. The following exceptions: First,
10 65 ter number 10135 will not be admitted. And the Chamber does not find
11 that the requirements for -- because the Chamber does not find that the
12 requirements for admission have been met. Secondly, 65 ter number 97 is
13 a duplicate of P179.10.
14 A decision on the admission of the documents the Defence has
15 sought to have admitted through Djeric will be delivered at a later time.
16 So we return in 20 minutes.
17 --- Recess taken at 12.05 p.m.
18 --- On resuming at 12.31 p.m.
19 [The witness takes the stand]
20 MR. DI FAZIO: May I continue, Your Honours?
21 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Di Fazio.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
23 Q. Mr. Draganovic, thank you for answering questions so far briefly.
24 It's really assisted the Prosecution today, and I would ask that you
25 continue to confine your answers and keep them as brief as possible.
1 Do you know Stojan Zupljanin?
2 A. Yes, I know Mr. Zupljanin well.
3 Q. When did you first meet him?
4 A. A long time ago. I think it was in 1967, if I'm not mistaken,
5 because that is when I started attending the secondary school of public
6 administration as Banja Luka. I believe that that is where we met, but
7 the gentleman can correct me if I'm wrong.
8 Q. And following that, did you have from time to time professional
9 contact with Mr. Zupljanin?
10 A. Did I. But that I can explain. So we went to secondary school
11 of public administration. He was one year ahead of me, if I'm not
12 mistaken. We were at the same pupils' accommodation facility, I think,
13 and we socialised and we attended the same faculty and we met there until
14 the end of our studies, and he got a job with the police, whereas I
15 worked in the judiciary and so that we had professional contacts.
16 Q. All right. You testified on Friday, 26 April 2002.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please, this evidence is at
18 page 5110 of the transcripts.
19 Q. You testified that when you are in Manjaca, a number of
20 personalities came to the camp. And you said that the camp was also
21 visited by Stojan Zupljanin and another gentleman, a guy named
22 Nenad Balaban. They were together. Did you also -- did you know this
23 other chap, Nenad Balaban?
24 A. It is all exactly the way you put it, yes. I knew
25 Mr. Nenad Balaban. He was a judge before the war of the district court
1 at Banja Luka. I believe that for a time he was also the president of
2 the district court of Banja Luka after the war. Now he is attorney at
3 law in Banja Luka.
4 Q. And do you know what role or position or job he had at the time
5 that you saw him in Manjaca? And I'm talking about Balaban now, not
6 Mr. Zupljanin.
7 A. Yes. I knew Mr. Balaban's position. I used to meet him even
8 before 1992 while we worked as judges. I remember meeting him when the
9 commander of a reserve JNA unit -- when the -- when there was war in
11 municipality. I found out later that Mr. Balaban was the commander of
12 military security of the 1st Banja Luka Corps of the Serbian army, if I'm
13 not mistaken, that is. But I believe that's the way it was.
14 Q. Thank you. You testified that when you saw both men,
15 Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Balaban, that Mr. Zupljanin was head of the CSB,
16 and that Balaban was dressed in military uniform and Mr. Zupljanin in
17 civilian clothes. Where were you when you first laid eyes on them that
19 A. I was in the Manjaca concentration camp. I was an inmate. It
20 was around lunchtime, we received meals, at the time the meal was served.
21 And I was in the part of the camp where there was a roofed-over place for
22 dining. And Mr. Zupljanin and Mr. Balaban passed by, rather, they were
23 passing through the camp, and the commander of the camp, Bozidar Popovic,
24 I think that was his name. I was at that roofed-over place at mealtime,
25 and they went through there and they went to a facility called Konjusnica
1 which means stable.
2 And when they were returning, I decided to speak to them. And I
3 approached them and they stopped and exchanged greetings with me. And
4 this would be the reply to your question.
5 Q. Thank you. Can you tell the Trial Chamber what was said between
6 you and these two men? What -- how matters proceeded once you had
7 greeted them.
8 A. The conversation was very short and so was the encounter. I
9 remember the conversation. The first thing I noticed, especially in
10 Mr. Balaban, was his surprise at my being in the camp. And he said, Are
11 you too in the camp? And then he swore but with no ill intentions. And
12 I said, Yes, I'm here. And he asked about some other colleagues of ours,
13 lawyers, judges, attorneys, who are also Muslims, Bosniaks. And I told
14 him who else there was in the camp, and I asked Mr. Zupljanin, What is
15 all this about? How long is this agony going to last? What will happen
16 to us? And he replied briefly that we would be released, that nothing
17 would happen, so he was telling me that we would all be released from the
18 camp, in a few words.
19 It was a brief encounter. And Mr. Balaban said to me, Well, you
20 are better off here than being in a trench at the front line. And I
21 thought to myself, well, that's probably true. And then they left. And
22 I stayed in the camp.
23 Q. Thank you. One last question on this particular topic. You say
24 they went to a facility called Konjusnica which means stable. Were
25 prisoners accommodated or kept in that place, the stable that they went
2 A. Whether they were put up there at the time, I don't recall now.
3 People were put there for a longer time, they were there in isolation. I
4 spent eight days in special treatment that was one group of people, there
5 was another group of people who were ill and isolated for that reason,
6 but I don't remember whether anybody was lying in that part at the time
7 because the stables were actually sufficient as accommodation. I really
8 don't recall whether anybody was in the stable at the time.
9 Q. Thank you. Now, I'd like you to --
10 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Di Fazio, you are aware that you've exhausted
11 the hour that you had indicated you would spend on this witness?
12 MR. DI FAZIO: I am, Your Honours. Can I just seek your
13 indulgence. I'm on my very last topic, and I'm basically just going to
14 show a small excerpt from a video, and that's it. I would estimate I'd
15 probably -- I will be exceeding, but I won't go beyond about 5 to
16 8 minutes. That sort of order of minutes. It's not going to be a long
18 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] With leave, Your Honours, just a
20 correction of the transcript. Could my learned friend ask the witness to
21 repeat because one part of his answer when he was speaking about the
22 people who were in the stable, one part of his answer was not recorded.
23 The part when he would have spoke who those people were and why they were
24 put there when he was -- his description of those circumstances didn't
25 make it to the transcript. I cannot suggest to the witness what to say
1 now, but he -- so it may be good for the -- to ask the witness to repeat.
2 Or I'll deal with it in the cross-examination.
3 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Krgovic.
4 MR. DI FAZIO: I'd prefer it if Mr. Krgovic dealt with it in
5 cross-examination. I'm sure it can be clarified then.
6 Would Your Honours just give me a moment.
7 [Prosecution counsel confer]
8 MR. DI FAZIO:
9 Q. Just before we move on to the video, you recall in your previous
10 testimony that you described all the various beatings and deaths that
11 occurred in Manjaca that you either learned about from other prisoners or
12 that you saw with your own eyes.
13 A. That is correct.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks. Can the witness be shown P411.40. If
15 Your Honours please --
16 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, I'm not quite certain of how to
17 interpret the answer given by the witness to your question because you
18 say -- you asked him whether he recalls in the previous testimony that he
19 described all the various beatings and deaths that occurred in Manjaca
20 that he learned from others or saw with his own eyes. To whom did he
21 describe that?
22 MR. DI FAZIO: To the Court. It's in the transcript --
23 JUDGE HARHOFF: So he didn't describe it to Mr. Zupljanin or to
24 Mr. Balaban.
25 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no, no, I'm sorry if I made that -- I should
1 have --
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Just to clarify. Thanks.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: No, no, Your Honour is quite right, that's the way
4 I intended that evidence, and I think that is what the witness meant.
5 Very well, is the video ...
6 Q. Now, I'll ask for it to stop every now and then, Mr. Draganovic,
7 and ask you to very briefly, again very briefly, comment on what we can
9 MR. DI FAZIO: If Your Honours please, there will be no sound
10 with this excerpt, that's because it's almost inaudible, and for the
11 purposes of this particular witness, there's no need to know what is
12 actually being said. It's actually what you can see that is the relevant
14 Can we play the video, please.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Just hold it.
17 Q. Do you recognise any of those people? Or have you seen those
18 people before?
19 A. It's difficult to recognise these people now, but I recognise the
20 facility, and I may have seen those people from the camp, but I cannot
21 say this is person X or Y. That's not possible. But this is Manjaca
22 camp. This is the interior of the stable where the people are sitting
23 and the layout as they were placed there.
24 Q. Just one question, thank you. The disheveled condition of the
25 men that you can see there, was that -- is that how they appeared to you
1 when you first arrived at Manjaca?
2 A. I testified about that in detail in the Brdjanin/Talic case. But
3 I can repeat even now. All of us looked like this then. There was no
4 way we could have been tidy because there were no adequate living
5 conditions there. It's a stable. It's meant for livestock, and staying
6 there for months without the basic living conditions, people cannot look
7 any different from what they look in this image.
8 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we continue playing the video.
9 [Video-clip played]
10 MR. DI FAZIO:
11 Q. Just a watch it.
12 A. I recognise the people in the first scene, and I know the man who
13 was distributing water, and the water bearer. I was in this same stable.
14 So this take shows the inmates distributing water from this plastic
16 Q. Thank you.
17 MR. DI FAZIO: And if Your Honours please --
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I apologise, I can add that this is
19 stable number 1, the one where I was in. I can tell by the people that I
21 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you. And for the purposes of the record, I
22 think that's at point 2 minutes, 14.1 second into the tape. Please
23 continue playing.
24 [Video-clip played]
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Here we can see Mr. Ashdown's
1 visit. And we now see Bozidar Popovic the commander of the camp. I
2 don't remember if he was a lieutenant-colonel or a colonel in the army.
3 MR. DI FAZIO: Thanks. Just go back very small. Okay. Now play
4 it. Hold it. Thanks.
5 Q. Now, in that particular portion of the videotape which is at
6 2.23.6, there's a man with military uniform. Who is that? On the left.
7 A. That is the commander of the camp, Bozidar Popovic.
8 Q. Thank you.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we continue playing.
10 [Video-clip played]
11 MR. DI FAZIO:
12 Q. You can see that gentleman there, he is obviously extremely
13 emaciated and skinny. Did you see any men in that sort of physical
14 condition when you arrived at Manjaca?
15 A. Well, most people were in that condition or a similar condition.
16 Those were the early days of the camp when we had been there for up to a
17 month. We can see these journalists are explaining that inmates from
18 Omarska had arrived three days earlier. That is the most difficult time
19 of your stay in the camp because when -- that was a death camp. People
20 were physically mistreated, there was no food, people lived in fear that
21 they would be killed, and so on. So that most people were skinny and
22 everybody had lost weight, 20 kilos or 30. And I'm one of those, I also
23 lost 30 kilograms.
24 Q. When you say death camp, you are talking about Omarska, aren't
1 A. No, no. I'm speaking about the Manjaca camp. The Manjaca camp
2 was a death camp at first, until the international Red Cross came and
3 registered the inmates, and until the UNHCR started supplying the camp
4 with food. So I'm referring to the Manjaca camp not the Omarska camp.
5 Of course the people who had come from Omarska were in an even worse
6 condition than we at Manjaca. We had already heard from the
7 representatives of the International Red Cross that the people at Omarska
8 had been through an even worse ordeal than we at Manjaca.
9 Q. Thank you.
10 A. And you could tell by looking at them when they were brought,
11 transported from Omarska, you could see the disastrous condition in which
12 they were.
13 Q. Thank you.
14 MR. DI FAZIO: Can we condition playing.
15 [Video-clip played]
16 MR. DI FAZIO: Sorry, I interrupted unnecessarily. Please
18 [Video-clip played]
19 MR. DI FAZIO: I think that's sufficient for my purposes, if
20 Your Honours please, and I'd like to tender that excerpt.
21 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
22 MR. DI FAZIO: My apologies, Your Honour. I might have ...
23 JUDGE HALL: I understand that's already in.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Yes, yes, I'm sorry, that was -- I was just
25 playing an excerpt, so I didn't need to capture that as a separate
1 exhibit or anything. Thank you for that.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Di Fazio, before we leave the picture on the
3 screen, I just have a question about the conditions under which the
4 detainees were held at Manjaca because every time we've seen footages
5 from the stables people have been sitting down in that position. And I
6 think I heard the journalist, the female journalist say, although it was
7 almost inaudible, that they were forced to sit like that for the bulk of
8 the day. And it was only when they were taken out that they could rise.
9 So my question to you is, could you elicit from the witness the
10 conditions for the detainees when they were there, were they allowed to
11 move around freely? Or did they have to sit like this, and for how long.
12 MR. DI FAZIO:
13 Q. Well, you heard His Honour's question, it's clearly put. No need
14 for me to repeat it. Can you explain to the Trial Chamber and clarify
15 that aspect of matters.
16 A. Yes. Your Honours, I can explain it as follows: In the stables
17 we had to be in one place all the time, either sitting or lying down.
18 Nobody was allowed to leave the stable without special need, so we had to
19 report if we wanted to go to the toilet, and we would be let out in
20 groups of ten with our heads down if we wanted to go to the toilet. Or
21 if we went to do force labour, and daily about 1.000 people went out to
22 do agricultural work or fell trees or build a church, that would be all
23 our movement. Later after several months in the camp, with the
24 permission of the military police, a number of sick people could leave
25 the stable and sit outside, but that would be a group of about 20 or 30
2 So movement was not allowed. It happened that somebody went out
3 and went to another stable, but if a military policeman noticed -- it
4 happened that I had to crawl from one stable to another, and I was lucky
5 because I wasn't beaten up because I went from one stable to another to
6 see a relative. Once I was hit in the face twice, the military policeman
7 Popovic punched me in the face because we didn't lower our heads when we
8 went toward the stable. He saw us through the wire fence and so I was
9 punched twice and so was my colleague, and we were threatened that we
10 would be taken outside in the evening and beaten.
11 That would be my answer about our stay inside. I spoke in detail
12 in my statement, my earlier statement about the conditions of stay, the
13 conditions that prevailed. And if necessary, I can say more about that.
14 At any rate, the conditions were inhumane. I can say that no one person
15 who was in the camp at which I stayed that didn't suffer serious
16 consequences and who didn't develop an illness, and many inmates have
17 already died at the age of 40 to 50. And I can say that in my assessment
18 that over 500 former inmates of Manjaca camp are already dead.
19 It's not only about the conditions of stay, but also the police
20 officers who kept us there, they were very ingenious in contriving ways
21 of making it more difficult for us. Such as we were made to leave the
22 stables in rainy weather and stand in the rain for hours, and we would
23 then re-enter the stable wet and lie on the concrete floor or the earth
24 floor and of course we were soaked, and the wet clothes would dry on our
25 bodies. Especially in the beginning and also later in the fall, the
1 conditions were utterly inhumane, so there was hardly a person who didn't
2 develop pneumonia or any other serious disease. There was also typhoid
3 fever but that was never published. These people were taken to
4 Banja Luka or some place, I don't know, some people died, others were in
5 a very serious condition. There was a group of people who were seriously
6 ill, they were taken to England
7 been. And that would roughly be my answer if you are satisfied.
8 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you. One extra thing briefly, I know that
9 you are anxious to get on, you said that you were kept under special
10 treatment. Can you explain that to us.
11 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] When I said special treatment, you
12 see people who are working military policemen who had access to the camp,
13 they simply had a programme, a plan for torturing us, apart from the
14 beatings, the physical abuse, there was also psychological abuse that I
15 have also mentioned in my evidence. They kept threatening us, telling us
16 that we would never leave the camp alive, that they will kill us. It was
17 a programme followed by military policemen who came into the stables
18 every day and tortured us mentally and physically. That was especially
19 bad in the first half of our stay in the camp.
20 I've already said that this special treatment, or rather part of
21 it, was making us to stand in the rain and, therefore, come back into the
22 stable soaked. And there were many other things, but I've already
23 mentioned them in my prior evidence.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Di Fazio, can I ask a question, we have the
1 images here of the video, do we have the text as well?
2 MR. DI FAZIO: There is a transcript, and we can put it into
3 e-court if you wish.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: It would be helpful.
5 MR. DI FAZIO: If the Trial Chamber wishes I'm more than happen
6 happy to put that transcript into evidence. And we can make a note of it
7 and we will attend to it perhaps on Monday or perhaps later during the
8 course of this witness's evidence.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
10 MR. DI FAZIO:
11 Q. Two last issues, just very briefly. Was there an Orthodox
12 church, an Orthodox church located anywhere near Manjaca camp that you
13 are aware of?
14 A. In the vicinity of the Manjaca camp, an Orthodox Christian church
15 was being built. Camp inmates were taken there on a daily basis,
16 escorted by the military police in groups, and the inmates worked for
17 several months on the construction of the church, and the church was
18 built in the time that we were in the camp. It was somewhere above the
19 camp, overlooking the camp. I had never been at that site because I was
20 not one of those people who were allowed to go out. So I don't know
21 exactly, but I think it's 3 to 4 kilometres from the camp.
22 Q. Thank you. And now, my last question, which will require me to
23 put to you a portion of your testimony.
24 MR. DI FAZIO: 5453 in the transcript from Brdjanin.
25 Q. You are asked if civilian police had participated in beatings or
1 whether it was just the military police, and you said this:
2 "On the whole, the military police were involved in the beatings
3 and members of the army. However, in the beatings that took place at
4 night, members of the Serbian police would also participate in them
5 sometimes. The policemen who were providing security in the camp, in
6 particular the Serbian policemen from Kljuc would do this. Some of my
7 cousins from Kljuc were in the camp with me and they were beaten. In the
8 course of the night, they were taken out and both the military policemen
9 and the civilian policemen would beat them. They were given very severe
10 beatings with rifle-butts. They were even beaten, these civilian
11 policemen would even hit them on the fingers with their rifle-butts.
12 They had to put their hands on a table of some sort and then they would
13 hit their fingers with the rifle-butts.
14 "I want to say that the policemen from Sanski Most, the civilian
15 policemen who were providing security, as far as I know they didn't
16 participate in these beatings."
17 Now, how many policemen from Sanski Most were helping out with
18 providing security at Manjaca? Can you remember that?
19 A. I can say there were two periods when the civilian police came
20 from Sanski Most on buses to work as security details at the camp. In
21 the first stint they worked there 15 days, and then another 15 days. And
22 they rotated. They came twice from Sanski Most, and I can't remember how
23 many times from Kljuc. But in the beginning of my stay there were
24 policemen from Kljuc there who were particularly cruel to the people, the
25 victims at the camp. That's why I made this distinction because the
1 people from the civilian police force of Sanski Most were people I knew.
2 Some of them were my neighbours. They were working at the police station
3 in Sanski Most and after all is said and done, they were still different
4 from the policemen from Kljuc.
5 One bus load of policemen came the first time, and when they came
6 for another stint, it was again a bus load, 20, 30 men, I don't know
7 exactly. I don't know how many men were needed to guard the camp, but
8 they mostly guarded outside the wire fence.
9 MR. DI FAZIO: Thank you for answering my questions. If
10 Your Honours please, I have no further questions.
11 JUDGE HALL: Cross-examination.
12 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
13 Cross-examination by Mr. Krgovic:
14 Q. [Interpretation] Good afternoon, Mr. Draganovic.
15 A. Good afternoon.
16 Q. My name is Dragan Krgovic, I'm appearing on behalf of
17 Mr. Zupljanin, and I have a few questions for you concerning your
18 evidence earlier today and your past evidence in Brdjanin and Talic.
19 Just one thing, we speak the same language and for the interpreters and
20 everyone to be able to follow, we need to make pauses between questions
21 and answers, so after my question, wait for a second or two before you
22 start answering. I'm a fast speaker, you are a lawyer, you will probably
23 answer quickly, we need to be careful.
24 Mr. Draganovic, you mentioned this encounter with Mr. Zupljanin
25 in Manjaca, and from what I understood from your Brdjanin evidence it was
1 in end July, beginning of August; is that right?
2 A. I'm sure that it could have been in the second half of the
3 summer. It's hard to say whether it was end July or the beginning of
4 August or the end of August, but it was quite late into the summer. I
5 never noted down that date, and I couldn't be more precise.
6 Q. And that was the only time you saw Mr. Zupljanin in Manjaca?
7 A. Yes, that was the only time. If he had visited more than that
8 once, I would have certainly heard about it. One the inmates would
9 always spread the news of visitors to the command of the camp.
10 Q. And from what you were able to see, he just passed through the
11 camp, he didn't address anyone with a speech, he didn't hold a rally,
12 nothing like that?
13 A. No, no, there was no speech, and he only passed through the
14 premises of the camp together with the camp commander.
15 Q. That's this Mr. Balaban; right? He was with him?
16 A. Yes, Mr. Balaban was together with Mr. Zupljanin.
17 Q. Do you know that at that time when you were held in Manjaca,
18 Zarko Tole an HVO officer captured in combat was also held in Manjaca at
19 the same time?
20 A. Yes, I recall that. Mr. Zarko Tole was in the same stable with
22 Q. Do you know that he was a colleague of Mr. Zupljanin's from
23 before the war, and Mr. Zupljanin visited him on that occasion? Do you
24 know that?
25 A. No, I really didn't know that. I don't know anything about the
1 relationship between Mr. Zarko Tole and Mr. Zupljanin.
2 Q. You said in your earlier evidence and you mentioned today again
3 that after the arrival of the International Red Cross, and the aid from
4 the UNHCR, the image of Manjaca changed considerably. It was sometime in
5 the summer that these ICRC packages and representatives began to come.
6 A. Yes, that's what I said in my testimony and that's true.
7 Q. Mr. Draganovic, just one more thing about Manjaca. You said in
8 your evidence that in 1995 when you returned to Sanski Most you found a
9 certain document at the health centre there, a document related to the
10 death of several people during the transportation from Sanski Most to
11 Manjaca, do you remember that?
12 A. Yes. I said that I found documentation at the health centre in
13 Sanski Most, a list of people who had been transported to Manjaca and
14 brought back from there, including indications of their individual
15 diagnosis. These people were dead.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we show a 65 ter document 2786.
17 I'm not sure if it's in this package.
18 Q. I see an Official Note here where you describe how you found that
20 A. Correct.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see the next page. Could we
22 zoom in.
23 Q. This is basically the document you found. You just added a cover
24 letter, this Official Note. I'm not sure if you wrote your note on a
25 separate piece of paper which was then attached or these two were
1 together because we see this here as one document. Could you clarify.
2 A. The document we see on the screen now is the original document
3 that I found. I wrote an Official Note about this document, and in this
4 Official Note, I explained what this is.
5 Q. So your note is a separate document basically?
6 A. The note is my document, and this is an original that I
8 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the bottom of the
10 Q. The text in bold type. Could the witness read it.
11 A. You mean --
12 Q. The text. Can you read it.
13 A. "At the proposal of the Sanski Most court and the Sanski Most
14 Secretariat of the Interior, the examination of the above named was
15 carried out by a medical committee consisting of Dr. Bosko Grubisa and
16 Dr. Stanko Erceg. We established that the above named persons died of
18 Asphyxia, I suppose means suffocation, and here we see the
19 original signatures of Drs. Bosko Grubisa and Stanko Erceg. Between the
20 two signatures we see the stamp of the health centre in Sanski Most.
21 Q. Thus, from this document, I get confirmation of your evidence.
22 These people were sent from Sanski Most to Manjaca, and during the
23 journey they suffocated to death and their bodies were taken back to
24 Sanski Most where certain procedures were carried out?
25 A. Yes, that's true, but I'd like to add that among these people who
1 were returned to Manjaca four persons are missing. These people were
2 alive; however, they are not recorded anywhere, nor have they ever been
3 found. It is assumed that they are killed.
4 Q. In this case the investigating judge issued an order to establish
5 the cause of death, that's what I can see from this document, or that
6 certain steps be taken to find out the cause death.
7 A. It seems to follow from what is written here. However, I did not
8 find at the court any sort of protocol written by the investigating judge
9 when I joined the court in 1995. Therefore, this is the only document
10 related to these people that has been found.
11 Q. And it says here that this was the proposal of the court of
12 Sanski Most and also the SUP, the Secretariat of the Interior of
13 Sanski Most?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. It was up to the police station in Sanski Most and the court of
16 Sanski Most to take steps and procedures to find the cause of death.
17 A. These steps and procedures fell within the jurisdiction of the
18 court and the police in Sanski Most at the time. And we know well that
19 the police and the judiciary at that time were run by Serbs.
20 Q. All right, Mr. Draganovic. Speaking of the conditions in
21 Manjaca, when you testified in the Brdjanin case, that was on the 22nd of
22 May, when you were shown one document of the charity organisation
23 Merhamet describing the conditions in Manjaca, you said that this report
24 did not reflect the current situation in Manjaca, and you said you
25 thought the reports coming out of Manjaca were not consistent with what
1 was actually happening in those camps, centres.
2 A. That's what I said, and I believe it was true.
3 Q. And generally speaking, the people who were responsible, in this
4 case Colonel Popovic or anyone else responsible for any such centre, when
5 they would be sending a report that had been asked, they would always try
6 to look it better than it actually was.
7 A. Well, you see, the people in this organisation Merhamet really
8 helped us a lot. They would come from time to time. They would bring
9 some aid that was precious for us camp inmates. Can I go on? But I have
10 to say that these people were under very strict control by General Talic,
11 I believe, directly. And their reports had to be subjected to some sort
12 of censorship.
13 Q. Merhamet was a Muslim humanitarian or charity organisation;
15 A. Yes. I have documents about the establishment of Merhamet, and
16 they show that Merhamet was founded by the Serb authorities. For
17 instance, in Sanski Most, it was the Crisis Staff in Sanski Most who
18 decided who would be in the Merhamet organisation. Now, in Banja Luka
19 Q. No, I didn't mean to go into detail. I was just asking for your
20 conclusion that people who were running certain facilities when writing
21 reports to superior authorities always tried to show things looking a
22 little better than they actually were.
23 A. Yes, yes, I accept that. Moreover, whenever a delegation would
24 be announced or a team of reporters or a visit from a humanitarian
25 organisation, before that visit, inmates would be forced to tidy up a
1 little, throw some quick lime on to dumps, clean up a bit as far as was
2 possible in those conditions to make it look a little better.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] I am sorry, Your Honour, I forgot.
4 I would like to tender this document. If it's not in evidence already.
5 JUDGE HALL: Again I understand it's part of the 65 ter package.
6 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. When you were talking about the conditions in Sanski Most and the
8 reports describing that situation, do you know perhaps that
9 Mr. Stojan Zupljanin in the summer of 1992 formed a commission whose job
10 was to tour police stations in Sanski Most, in Prijedor, and
11 Bosanski Novi, to establish the existence or non-existence and the
12 conditions prevailing in such detention facilities, camps, do you know
14 A. I think I've seen a document to that effect somewhere, but I
15 really can't remember what was written in it. I think something like
16 that passed through my hands.
17 Q. You could have seen it when you were reviewing all sorts of
18 documentation in 1995?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. I'll come back to that later.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Court's indulgence.
22 Q. Just a moment, Mr. Draganovic, excuse me. We were a bit late
23 starting today. I need to find the document I want to show you.
24 Meanwhile, let me ask you this: You said you were arrested on
25 25th May 1992. You said you were arrested by Dane Kajtez, aka Danilusko;
1 Bata Vukic; Vase Davidovic; and Milorad Krunic; correct?
2 A. Yes, I think, except I'm not sure about Krunic, I'm not sure I
3 mentioned him, but the other three are correct. Possibly. I don't know.
4 Maybe he was the driver of that Mercedes.
5 Q. And this man Dane Kajtez, he was a member of the SD Serbian
6 Territorial Defence, do you know that?
7 A. Yes, I know that Danilusko Kajtez was a member of the SOS at the
9 Q. And you described them at that moment as soldiers?
10 A. Yes. They really wore camouflage military uniforms with insignia
11 of the Serbian army.
12 Q. And after that you were taken to the police station and from your
13 explanation I concluded that the place where the cells are is physically
14 separated from the police station, that means some sort of shed or
15 something in the yard; right?
16 A. That facility is part of the police premises, or the public
17 security station premises. Although you are right in saying that it's
18 physically separated from the main building.
25 [Private session]
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We are in open session, Your Honours.
7 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Mr. Draganovic, were you able to see this document possibly in
9 1995 when you returned to Sanski Most or later on?
10 A. Please give me some time to read it, or you read it out.
11 Q. I'll read out the parts I'm interested in. I'm interested in
12 some parts only, and I will show you the signature. It says here that:
13 "At Sanski Most during combat activity two centres were
14 established. One of them was the collection centre at the gymnasium, and
15 the other was a collection and investigation centre at the Betonirka
16 factory. On the 1st of August, the gymnasium was vacated ..."
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could counsel please repeat his last words.
18 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. "... and the collection and the investigation centre was
20 established at the Krings Factory Hall.
21 "The Crisis Staff of the municipality ordered their investigation
22 centre to be set up. It made the decision that the prison should be set
23 up the Betonirka company facilities. It appointed the warden and
24 assistant warden of the prison, who were given personnel for physical
25 security. The personnel consisted of members of the former TO and four
1 or five members of the reserve police force."
2 Mr. Draganovic, did you know that a prison warden was appointed,
3 I believe that you spoke about Mr. Dragan Vujanic, or did you say
5 A. Drago.
6 Q. Drago. And that his assistant was Krunic. Were you familiar
7 with these facts at the time when you were in detention?
8 A. I would just ask that the remainder of the document be shown to
9 me, or that the second page.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could you please show the second
11 page to the witness.
12 Q. I'll go through the entire part that is relevant for the
13 detention, and then I'll ask you a few questions, or if you wish, I can
14 give you a hard copy of the document.
15 A. I would like to have a look at it. I am afraid that I might say
16 something wrong unless I see the entire document.
17 Q. Please look at the signature but don't say the name, please.
18 A. I really don't recall whether or not I've seen this document in
19 the documentation. If the document was given to the OTP, then I must
20 have seen it. Otherwise, I haven't.
21 Q. Do you understand?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. I just want to ask you whether this was one of the documents that
24 you found when you returned to Sanski Most in 1995.
25 A. I believe so. It's a document from the Sanski Most police
2 Q. Mr. Draganovic, I would like to revert you to the first page of
3 the document, and then I will ask you a few questions. But you didn't
4 answer my last question, it follows from this document --
5 A. I will answer. Go ahead and ask.
6 Q. It follows from this document that the Crisis Staff of the
7 Sanski Most municipality established the prison in Betonirka and the
8 Sports Hall and that a warden and a deputy warden were appointed. Does
9 this correspond to your knowledge at the time?
10 A. I believe that this is exactly the way it was.
11 Q. And the warden was Drago Vujanic, and his assistant was Krunic.
12 A. Before Drago Vujanic, the Crisis Staff appointed a warden Papric,
13 the retired or earlier police chief. I knew that. Papric, I believe his
14 first name is Miladin, and I don't know if he is still alive. He lived
15 in Prijedor. He with Nedeljko Rasuo and two other members of the Crisis
16 Staff from the SDS came to the cell in which I was on the second day
17 after my arrest. And then Papric wore a uniform. He had a police
18 uniform, the uniform of the Serbian police and the uniform of a prison
19 warden. That's when I saw the man, and he said I can see some
20 respectable people here and -- well, I don't have to re-tell it all. But
21 after some weeks or so he was no longer warden, which I learned later on.
22 He soon resigned because he had seen at Betonirka that respected citizens
23 of Sanski Most were being beaten up, and that's why he said that he
24 would -- he didn't want to do his job anymore, if that's sufficient for
1 Q. Yes. Please look at the -- especially the second page of the
2 document which speaks about the conditions prevailing in what they call
3 collection centres and collection -- and investigation centres. And I
4 will ask you some brief questions about that and you will explain that
5 part of to me later. It says here that these facilities, apart from
6 Betonirka, were lit, that the inmates had blankets, Styrofoam, that they
7 had water, that they were entitled to visit, receiving visits, and
8 inhumane conditions and bad treatment of the inmates isn't mentioned
9 here. Do you agree?
10 A. I can see what you have read, but these statements are false.
11 Q. And the one receiving such a report would have no reason to doubt
12 it's content if he receives it from a responsible person?
13 A. I cannot comment that.
14 Q. But you will agree with me that the people responsible tried to
15 depict the situation different from what it was; isn't that so?
16 A. Please accept my previous answer. I don't want to comment this.
17 I cannot say what other people are thinking and how they are going about
18 their duties. I must tell you that there was daily correspondence and
19 special orders going from chiefs of police or circulating among chiefs of
20 police, chiefs of CSB.
21 Q. And you were only detained in police detention on the premises of
22 the police station?
23 A. Yes, that is correct. I was in the detention facility for only
24 24 days. It was part of the Sanski Most police station. As president of
25 the municipal court of Sanski Most without a written order, without any
1 investigation, without any document, I was kept in an inhumane conditions
2 and taken to Manjaca concentration camp, and there are documents that
3 show the circumstances of my release.
4 Q. And when you were taken to Manjaca, the vehicle in which you were
5 taken there was escorted by, among others, the warden Vujanic?
6 A. Yes. Actually, he was the commander of the police station, that
7 is the CSB. He was chief at the time, Drago Vujanic, and he was also
8 prison warden. Next to him there was Zoran Despot who was a criminal
9 police inspector at the Sanski Most police station. And there were two
11 Q. I apologise for interrupting you. You said that he was chief of
12 police. When you say so, he was chief of the SJB, the public security
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Wasn't Milan Ivanic chief at the time?
16 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Krgovic.
17 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] If I may just elicit the answer to
18 this last question, and then I'm finished for today.
19 Q. Mr. Draganovic, do you know that at the time Milan Ivanic was
20 commander of the police station?
21 A. As far as I know there were assistant chiefs of police. I
22 believe that Mr. Ivanic was one of the assistants of the chief of police,
23 and I believe that only in a later period Ivanic became chief, but at the
24 time, as far as I remember, Mr. Drago Vujanic was chief.
25 Q. I will show you a document --
1 A. But I don't rule out the possibility that due to the lapse of
2 time I might be wrong.
3 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. Draganovic. I have
4 no more further questions of you today.
5 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Draganovic, the -- it is regrettable that you
6 are going to be inconvenienced by having to remain with us a few days
7 more. Tomorrow is a UN holiday and the court will not be sitting, and on
8 Monday the court had made previous arrangements not to sit in order to
9 catch up with certain procedural and administrative matters. So,
10 therefore, this trial is now suspended until Tuesday morning. And for
11 the information of counsel, we resume at 9.00 in Courtroom II.
12 So Mr. Draganovic, you are excused as a witness. You are not of
13 course released, and I repeat the usual cautions about not communicating
14 with anyone, and I wish you is safe weekend, and likewise counsel and the
16 MS. KORNER: Can I just remind Your Honours that I did make an
17 oral application yesterday in respect of the documents that I didn't
18 manage to get in with the witness who was in closed session. So that
19 perhaps you can deal with it on your -- the day for dealing with
20 administrative matters. Thank you.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
22 [The witness stands down]
23 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.48 p.m.
24 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 1st day of
25 December, 2009, at 9.00 at a.m.