1 Thursday, 18 November 2010
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.
5 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. Good morning to
6 everyone in and around the courtroom.
7 This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and
8 Stojan Zupljanin.
9 Thank you, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Registrar.
11 Good morning to everyone. May we have the appearances, please.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted,
13 Tom Hannis, and Crispian Smith, for the Prosecution.
14 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.
15 Mico Stanisic is represented today by Ms. Whittaker and
16 Slobodan Cvijetic.
17 JUDGE HALL: Thank you.
18 There is a matter which has been brought to the attention of the
19 Judges and I don't know whether there is going to be a formal application
20 made by -- I assume it's the Prosecution today about the apportionment of
21 time today, or am I being premature?
22 MR. HANNIS: Well, Your Honours, I can raise it formally.
23 Ms. Pidwell had raised it informally because of a shortage of time. It
24 is in the hopes of being able to finish the next witness today so that he
25 doesn't have to stay over the long weekend, and because we have a
1 videolink scheduled for Monday, we were hoping if we could have an extra
2 session today we might be able to finish the upcoming witness as well as
3 this one. I know Mr. Olmsted has some discussions with the Defence about
4 how long they anticipate further cross on this witness. I think
5 Mr. Aleksic said he needed probably no more than one session. The
6 Stanisic team indicated they may have no questions. Mr. Olmsted then has
7 15 to 30 minutes. Ms. Pidwell said maybe one session and I don't know
8 how much the Defence has for the second session. But that's the hope and
9 that's what I have been asked to bring to your attention and make a
10 request, if we could have an extended sitting.
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, regarding the coming
13 witness, ST-258, our initial estimate was based on the Prosecution's
14 estimate. It was first three hours and then after we got the interview
15 of that witness, the English transcript, I said we would need not more
16 than one session. However, we received last night the proofing notes,
17 where the witness changed his story entirely regarding certain facts as
18 compared to the interview. So I'm not sure any longer that we could do
19 the cross-examination in just one session, although I'll try.
20 And we also received the motion for protective measures for the
21 same witness, from which we see that the Prosecution intends to lead this
22 witness regarding facts completely different than the adjudicated ones,
23 so I will certainly take longer in examining him than I had planned.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Hannis, you mentioned something by the way about
1 a videolink for Monday. Could you remind me as to what time that is set
3 The reason why I'm asking is that the latest version of the
4 calendar that has been published doesn't indicate that we are sitting on
5 Monday. Could you remind me as to -- sorry.
6 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
7 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
8 MR. HANNIS: It's my understanding that Monday we were scheduled
9 to sit in the afternoon, partly because the witness [Overlapping
10 speakers] ...
11 JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... I now remember that.
12 Yes, yes, yes, yes, thanks.
13 MR. HANNIS: And with regard to Mr. Krgovic has said and maybe I
14 can make a suggestion that we inquired to see if there is availability of
15 a courtroom and as we progress this morning, maybe at the end of this
16 session or at the end of the second session, we will have a better idea
17 whether there is any possibility to do it. If it appears it is
18 impossible, then I guess you can make that decision at the time. But --
19 I just suggest that maybe we keep an open mind and if there is a room
20 available we can have it on stand by, in case that might work out.
21 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Hannis.
22 MR. HANNIS: Thank you.
23 JUDGE HALL: At least we're all on notice. Thanks.
24 Good morning, Mr. Witness. The -- I remind you you're still on
25 your oath.
1 WITNESS: MEVLUDIN SEJMENOVIC [Resumed]
2 [Witness answered through interpreter]
3 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Aleksic, having benefitted from your lengthy
4 introduction yesterday, we look forward to your continuation of your
5 cross-examination proper this morning.
6 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Aleksic: [Continued]
8 Q. [Interpretation] Good morning, Mr. Sejmenovic.
9 A. Good morning.
10 Q. First of all, let me ask you, during the proofing for this case,
11 did you have the opportunity to re-listen to your evidence in other
13 A. Only a small part of it, because the -- the material is vast.
14 Q. Just very briefly on the subject of distribution of power,
15 division of power in Prijedor.
16 In the Kovacevic case on pages 366 to 370, you said that one of
17 the pre-election promises of the SDA was that, ultimately, a Muslim would
18 be elected chief of police, that is, head of the SUP, which met with the
19 opposition of the SDS, because their candidate, as you said, was
20 Simo Miskovic. And, furthermore, you said that problem, that issue, was
21 resolved to the advantage of the SDA with the appointment of
22 Mr. Hasan Kolondjic [phoen] as chief of the police of Prijedor, and then
23 you said in lines 1 to 6, page 368:
24 [In English] "But, of course, it was only after very long and
25 difficult negotiations and it was in consultation with our central party
1 boards SDA and SDS, respectively. And in the end, the SDS had to accept
2 the principles that been agreed upon at the level of the republic."
3 [Interpretation] Also, on page 369 in the same case you said:
4 [In English] "Everything that happened at the level of the
5 republic was then transferred to the level of the municipality. This was
6 especially the case with the SDS, and when it comes to Prijedor, the SDS
7 did not fully follow the directives from the SDS office in Sarajevo.
8 Very often they would block the implementation of certain things for
9 which they had orders."
10 [Interpretation] Do you remember giving this evidence?
11 Mr. Sejmenovic, do you remember saying this?
12 A. Generally speaking, I remember. I agree with the quotations
13 you've read.
14 Q. In the same case, probably in cross-examination, you were asked
15 about the same thing. And then you said:
16 [In English] "Yes, and after that, the leadership of the SDS and
17 SDA agreed in Prijedor," in Prijedor, probably, "to divide this post in
18 such a way. But I did say that this was done only after the
19 intervention, after the urging from the leaders of the republic level, as
20 far as I remember, because I was not present. But I know that this was
21 the only way to solve the problem because SDS did not agree at the local
22 level to completion [sic] of the allocation of power in this manner."
23 [Interpretation] Finally, you said that you personally put that
24 problem forward in Sarajevo, and then you said, Mr. Kadiric, said, Let
25 them have this position. Let their man have it.
1 A. Which position?
2 Q. We're talking all the time about Mr. Talundzic. Ultimately, the
3 Municipal Board of the SDS, after the intercession from their
4 headquarters, agreed that Mr. Talundzic take that post.
5 A. Yes. But Kadiric is not from the SDS. You said Kadiric said,
6 Let their man have it. Kadiric was from the SDA.
7 Q. Quite correct. It was a conversation between Mr. Srdjo Srdic and
8 Mr. Kadiric?
9 A. That is possible.
10 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we now have 2D02-2121.
11 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, this exhibit was shown to you previous in the
12 Brdjanin case.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Aleksic, can we have a tab number, please.
14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] 27. I'm sorry.
15 If we have the body of the text enlarged, that's a conclusion in
16 the middle.
17 In B/C/S, can we zoom in on the middle of the page.
18 Q. Do you remember this exhibit being shown to you? It's a part of
19 a large exhibit of the Prosecution in the Brdjanin case. It's one page
20 from the Official Gazette in Prijedor. And in this conclusion, number
21 116, it says:
22 "The Crisis Staff of Prijedor municipality does not accept and
23 considers as invalid any and all decisions by the Crisis Staff of the
24 Autonomous Region of Krajina adopted before 22nd June 1992."
25 And then point 2:
1 "The Crisis Staff of Prijedor municipality shall implement all
2 the enactments submitted to it and adopted after 22nd June 1992 by the
3 Crisis Staff of the autonomous region."
4 And just one more document and then I'll put you the -- put to
5 you my question.
6 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] It's 2D02-2122; tab 28.
7 This is the B/C/S. Thank you.
8 Q. This is another conclusion of the same Crisis Staff of Prijedor
9 made two days later where they say:
10 "The Prijedor municipal Crisis Staff shall not apply any
11 enactments adopted by the government of the Autonomous Region of Krajina
12 until such time as the Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina has
13 re-elected all members of the government in a manner ensuring equal
14 representation of all municipalities through the election of their
15 candidates to the government."
16 Now my question, Mr. Sejmenovic: Bearing in mind in your earlier
17 evidence in the Kovacevic and other cases, as to the behaviour of the
18 local SDS towards the headquarters, it follows from these documents that
19 they did perhaps not as they pleased but they decide autonomously what
20 they would and wouldn't apply and they were rather pig-headed, weren't
22 A. No. No, sir. These were two entirely different periods with
23 entirely two different presidents of the SDS. In the first time, after
24 the election, the president was Mr. Srdjo Srdic. We had co-operation
25 with them in certain periods. It was even good. While Srdic was
1 receiving criticism from the level of SDS in Sarajevo and criticism from
2 the local level saying that Srdjo Srdic was not pushing their political
3 agenda quicker. I inquired about certain of these things. And because
4 Srdjo Srdic was not pushing the political agenda of the SDS fast enough,
5 he was replaced and Simo Miskovic was elected in his place. That's about
6 the -- that level.
7 As for the Autonomous Region of Krajina, the authorities in that
8 region were in a certain kind of conflict with other authorities. I know
9 that some time after this period, even Kupresanin was replaced from his
10 position, and around that time, the autonomous regions were abolished
11 completely. Something else was established in their place. And
12 jurisdiction was given to local levels and other services.
13 Q. You said something similar answering the questions of
14 Mr. Ackerman in the Brdjanin case. You said it looked like a struggle
15 for power in the area of Banja Luka.
16 A. And Prijedor. In Prijedor, in fact, the power of the SDS was
17 firm, powerful and untouchable. There was no competition at all, no
19 Q. Perhaps we are not on the page sage, Mr. Sejmenovic. I meant the
20 Serbian authorities in Prijedor and the Serbian authorities in
21 Banja Luka. I'm talking about that struggle for power. Because they are
22 saying, We are not going to apply your decisions until you elect our
23 representatives to the government.
24 A. Yes, you can see that from these documents. But I'm trying to
25 say that it was a time when the whole government of the Autonomous Region
1 of Krajina was falling apart. What their political relationships were, I
2 don't know. But I know that all formal, legal relations functioned
4 Q. On this subject another few questions.
5 You talked yesterday and earlier about that meeting in Banja Luka
6 which was supposed to take place in September, including Mr. Karadzic and
7 international representatives, and you mentioned in your earlier evidence
8 that, on that occasion, you saw Mr. Srdjo Srdic who was furious and
10 A. Yes, yes.
11 Q. And he said that he was furious that all the power was given to
12 presidents of municipalities.
13 A. Yes, local power that related to municipalities. Now, what was
14 behind it --
15 Q. And the regions were abolished.
16 A. Yes, the regions were abolished by Karadzic.
17 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, could we get exhibit
18 numbers for these two documents that the witness discussed.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I don't mind the line of questioning.
20 They certainly can put their case to this witness. But this witness
21 would be completely unfamiliar with these decisions. He hasn't even been
22 asked whether he was aware that these two decisions were even issued. He
23 wasn't a member of the Serb Crisis Staff during this time period. He was
24 in hiding.
25 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, if
1 we are going to apply that principle, then this witness talked about many
2 things, and yesterday he discussed a document of the 5th of July, which
3 Simo Drljaca sent to the CSB Banja Luka. He has certain knowledge. He
4 commented on the document. He said he was aware of it. He spoke about
5 the meeting in Banja Luka, which had to do with the fact that all the
6 power was vested in presidents of the municipalities, and from this
7 document, it follows precisely that it was a tug of war between Serbs,
8 between local officials and -- and those in Sarajevo and Banja Luka.
9 JUDGE HALL: On a different tact, Mr. Aleksic, I notice that both
10 of these items are excerpts from the Official Gazette. Correct me if I'm
11 wrong, but wouldn't the gazette form part of the law library?
12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I don't think this
13 part is. It's an Official Gazette of Prijedor municipality. And these
14 two or three sheets are part of a large Prosecution exhibit from the
15 Brdjanin case. I'm not sure it's in our law library.
16 JUDGE HALL: No, it mightn't be in the law library. I'm
17 asking whether -- assuming that it is something that is relevant for our
18 purposes whether because it an is excerpt from the Official Gazette
19 whether it should not be -- rather than exceptionally exhibited, be part
20 of the law library, that's the question I'm asking. I can't recall as I
21 sit here how we have dealt with other items from the Official Gazette.
22 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honours. But this was a
23 local decision of the Municipal Assembly of Prijedor. As far as I
24 understand things, the law library includes documents from the republic
25 level and the federal level, from the times of the SFRY, laws, decrees,
1 bylaws; but this is a specific conclusion of the municipal assembly. I
2 don't think it's in the law library.
3 [Trial Chamber confers]
4 JUDGE HALL: You had something to say, Mr. Olmsted.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours.
6 My objection was aimed at the fact that this is not the
7 appropriate witness to admit these particular decisions because no
8 foundation was established.
9 However, if Your Honours believe it is something that should go
10 into the law library, the Prosecution doesn't object on that ground.
11 JUDGE HALL: No, that was a question that I raised because as I
12 said, I observed that it was part of the Official Gazette, but counsel
13 has pointed out that heretofore we have not included within our concept
14 of the law library -- what shall I call -- regional bits of official
15 documents, if I may call them that. We have confined it to, shall I say,
16 national bits of material. So -- so -- this is not -- if we were to
17 include this in the law library it would not be consistent with what we
18 had done previously.
19 MR. OLMSTED: I think that we have, Your Honours, included some,
20 at least, regional material. I think the ARK Crisis Staff
21 Official Gazettes are in the law library. I would have to confirm that
22 with our law library expert. But at any rate, the Prosecution would take
23 the position that there's no reason to draw a distinction between
24 something at the national level or the regional level or the municipal
25 level. If it is an Official Gazette document, it seems that it falls
1 within the scope of the law light library. We certainly would want to be
2 using these kind of documents. We have been using them and want to use
3 them during the Defence's case.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, I have just been alerted that
6 this document is in the law library, so ...
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated]
8 MR. OLMSTED: The one we are looking right now is definitely in
9 the law library. We can let you know in a minute with regard to the
10 second one.
11 Yes, Your Honour, both are.
12 JUDGE HALL: So we move on.
13 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I apologise. Let's move on.
14 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, might I finish my
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. I'm sorry, we don't have enough time. Please bear with me. We
18 have quite a few other subjects to cover.
19 Mr. Sejmenovic, you knew Mr. Simo Drljaca before the events of
20 30 April 1992; is that correct?
21 A. No.
22 Q. In the Stakic case, on pages 45581-82, Ms. Korner was examining
23 you, and she showed you a document which was a dispatch of 30 April sent
24 by Mr. Simo Drljaca. I won't show you that same document now. And she
25 asked you the following:
1 "[In English] Before the 13th of April, had you come across
2 Simo Drljaca?
3 "A. I only saw him several times. I knew him by sight. I did
4 not have any direct contact with him, by virtue of my function. I did
5 contact with Mr. Talundzic but I did not have any such contact with
6 Mr. Simo Drljaca, but I did knew -- know him. I saw him several times."
7 A. Can I answer?
8 Q. [Interpretation] Is it correct, this, that I just read?
9 A. You asked me whether I knew him. In our language, "knowing
10 somebody" means meeting him, talking to him. Now, whether I'd seen him,
11 whether I would recognise him is a different issue. Of course, I saw him
12 a few times, but I never contacted with him. For example, I don't know
13 your colleague, but I've seen him.
14 So it's correct what I said. I did see him on a few occasions,
15 but I never had any contacts with him.
16 Q. But you knew what he looked like.
17 A. He had a very unique voice, and I sort of knew what he looked
19 Q. In the same case, in the Stakic case, on page 4772, you were
20 shown a video, and the video said the following: That Mr. Simo Drljaca
21 was explaining the situation to foreign journalists. So Ms. Korner said:
22 "Could we stop the tape for a minute."
23 And asked you the following?
24 [In English] "Mr. Sejmenovic, Simo Drljaca that we see there
25 talking to the foreign journalist, had you seen him at the camp before
1 that? This is in Omarska."
2 [Interpretation] She was referring to Omarska.
3 You replied:
4 [In English] "No, I had not, not before that.
5 "Q. Did you actually know Simo Drljaca?
6 "A. I knew that he was with the police. I saw him several times
7 on various occasions, but I did have -- didn't have any direct contact
8 with him."
9 [Interpretation] This was in 2002, when you were shown this
10 video. And when you knew both his name and you knew what Simo Drljaca
11 looked like; is that correct?
12 A. Sir, that is identical to what you read out a moment ago.
13 Q. Four years before that, in 1998, in the Kovacevic case, you were
14 shown the same video, and on page 567, the question was on page 566,
15 Judge May asked:
16 [In English] "Who was the man on the tape?"
17 [Interpretation] And you replied:
18 [In English] "This is Mr. Simo Drljaca."
19 [Interpretation] That was in 1998.
20 And then on the next page, it was the same video, just a little
21 further on in the footage. The Prosecutor asked you whether you can
22 recognise the person who was in the middle of the still.
23 And you said:
24 [In English] "Yes, it was Simo Drljaca, the police chief in
1 [Interpretation] In the same case, the Kovacevic case, similarly
2 to all other cases, you testified about the meeting that was held with
3 the SDS leadership in mid-May. So on pages 422 to 427 in the Kovacevic
4 case you were asked who was present at that meeting.
5 And you said:
6 [In English] "From the SDA, Becir Medunjanin attended the
7 meeting, Mr. Islam Bahonjic, Mr. Meho Tursic, Mr. Ilijaz Music and
9 [Interpretation] And then on the next page you said:
10 [In English] "In that office, in addition to Mr. Miskovic, was
11 Mr. Dusan Kurnoga, Slobodan Kuruzovic, then an angry woman. I had never
12 seen her before. I don't remember her name. And then another -- another
13 or two people, I cannot state their names at this point."
14 [Interpretation] And then you were asked whether the meeting
15 started immediately and you said that you had to wait for Zeljaja and
16 Arsic to arrive. All that happened on the 8th of July, 1998.
17 Then in the same case, five days later, you were cross-examined
18 and you were asked who was present at these meetings.
19 You said the following:
20 [In English] "The officials at that meeting didn't speak much.
21 Slobodan spoke, and Mr. Simo as well."
22 [Interpretation] And then on page 626, you said:
23 [In English] "... half an hour later, Mr. Zeljaja and Arsic and
24 another soldier or a military officer who you did not know arrived; isn't
25 that correct?
1 "A. Yes."
2 "Q. Did anyone else arrive with them?
3 "A. I don't remember whether anyone else arrived with them.
4 There were some persons present there previously and I had mentioned
6 [Interpretation] On the next page, you said:
7 [In English] "I already stated that Kuruzovic was present as well
8 as Miskovic. Dusan Kurnoga was present and there were another one or two
9 persons whom I did not know. They were in civilian clothes. I assume
10 that they were not members from the SDS leadership," [Interpretation] and
11 so on.
12 Do you remember that being your evidence?
13 A. Yes, mainly.
14 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Aleksic, could you just help us out. Which
15 of the denied adjudicated facts does this -- all of this concern?
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this relates to the
17 fact that both the police, the army, and the SDS acted practically
18 together. And the police forces also participated in the attack on
19 Kozarac. This was the meeting that preceded that. And this is a part of
20 this witness's evidence that he mentioned for the first time after
21 18 years; namely, that Mr. Simo Drljaca was at that meeting.
22 If the Chamber is of the opinion that I needn't challenge the
23 witness's testimony in that regard, I will move on to something else.
24 JUDGE HARHOFF: Well, I just wanted to be sure that we are
25 keeping ourselves within the limits of the denied adjudicated facts. And
1 I'm still not sure that this is the case, but let's hear Mr. Olmsted.
2 What did you want to say?
3 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
4 It's not in dispute that this witness, in his prior testimony,
5 was not able to identify Simo Drljaca at this mid-May 1992 meeting with
6 Simo Miskovic and others. He said that there was two people who were not
7 identified, so the issue here with regard to identity is whether he was
8 subsequently able to identify that person at the meeting. And this
9 hasn't been put to him yet, and I think that is the point that needs to
10 be asked.
11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] What's the point of me asking that
12 question? What's the point of that? I started reading to the witness
13 his testimony of 12 years ago and eight years ago. He was then shown the
14 same video and he knew who Simo Drljaca was, what he looked like, and
15 what his name was. He testified for three weeks in the Stakic case. And
16 the video was shown again and the meeting was discussed again, and
17 yesterday he said that he was introduced as an official of public
18 security. He'd never used that term before.
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] A security officer, not from public
20 security. There were two security officers.
21 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Military?
23 A. No. The military security man, Arsic called him, My security
24 officer. And those other two men were called security officers.
25 Q. Sir, but this is something completely new now.
1 A. Allow me --
2 Q. I won't get into arguments with you. Don't assist me. I will
3 ask you the questions, if the Chamber will allow me.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Witness, I would like to know in everything
6 that has been read to you as your prior testimony, that, at one point, if
7 the reading was more or less complete, at one point you named the name of
8 Simo, nothing else.
9 Right, Mr. Aleksic?
10 What -- what did you mean by Simo, or who did you point out by
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours, every time, and in
13 every case, when I was asked about this, I listed the names of people
14 whom I knew and whom I'd had contacts with. There were people there who
15 I didn't know. And some of them were introduced as security officers.
16 One of them who was sitting next to Major Zeljaja was called, My security
17 officer by Arsic. He was from military security.
18 As for the people who I didn't know, I merely mentioned them as
19 being present at the meeting and I said that they spoke. However, one of
20 these people reminded me very much, because of his unique voice and his
21 hair, of a person whom I later saw on that tape. I didn't know
22 Simo Drljaca personally. I had seen him on a few occasions. I sometimes
23 saw him in civilian clothes. I sometimes saw him in police uniform. And
24 he looked somewhat different in a military uniform from how he looked in
25 civilian clothes.
1 With a certain degree of certainty, I said that I assumed that
2 this was Simo Drljaca. That was my reply. I wasn't decisive and said,
3 Yes, Simo Drljaca was present. My opinion is that that was him, except I
4 didn't know the man personally, so I couldn't say, Yes, that was Simo.
5 That's what this was all about.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. One other question on this issue.
9 But as I said, it was 12 and eight years ago, respectively, that
10 you were shown the video footage. And in the past couple of days, you
11 never said that, yes, it was Simo Drljaca.
12 A. Well, I wouldn't dare to do so even now. I wouldn't dare say,
13 yes, this is Simo Drljaca. I know that it was a man from public
14 security, and, based on the footage that I was able to see later on, the
15 individual reminded me of Simo Drljaca. What we need to draw a
16 distinction between a resolute statement without a doubt or -- or
17 uncertainty and a statement which isn't certain.
18 Q. In the Stakic case, 4609 is the page, you were asked:
19 [In English] "You say that Miskovic refused to start without the
20 military being there. Did the officers, Arsic and Zeljaja arrive?"
21 [Interpretation] Your answer is:
22 [In English] "Arsic, Zeljaja and two other officers arrived, four
23 all together.
24 "Q. Did you know who those two other officers are?
25 "A. No, I had never seen them before. One spoke in the Ekavian
1 dialect which means that he was not from Prijedor but from Serbia proper.
2 And he was the chief of security. At least that's how he was introduced
3 by Colonel Arsic, chief of Security Service or Intelligence Service."
4 [Interpretation] At the end of page, you were asked about the
5 fourth officer. Both the third and fourth, that is:
6 [In English] "And what was the security officer? Did you see
7 what rank he was -- what rank he was?
8 "A. I don't remember seeing a rank but it's possible that he was
9 a major.
10 "Q. And the other officer, was he introduced in any particular
12 "A. The other officer was not introduced. He never said a
14 [Interpretation] It follows from this, that it was yesterday that
15 you mentioned for the first time a person from public security and we
16 understand that you weren't sure if it was Simo Drljaca or not.
17 A. Please allow me to answer. There were security officers present,
18 and Arsic, a military commander, referred to one of them as his security
19 man. So they were security officers, one of whom was Arsic's. I don't
20 know who the other ones belonged to.
21 And let me tell you one other thing: When they stepped into the
22 room, they all looked the same to me. They all wore camouflage uniforms.
23 I didn't pay attention to any details. I was focussed on the substance
24 and the discussion at the meeting.
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 Q. Mr. Sejmenovic, let me try to expedite my examination.
2 As for the uniforms and insignia worn by these armed men - let us
3 call them that - you testified on this score in several cases. It was
4 for the first time yesterday, 18 years later, 18 years after the events
5 and eight years after your testimony on this, that you mentioned that
6 some of theme wore blue police uniforms?
7 A. I don't think that's true, but you are entitled to your opinion.
8 MR. OLMSTED: I object to the question, because it is very vague
9 and ambiguous. Which men wearing which uniforms at what time?
10 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Let's take it step by step then.
11 Q. You referred to the period after the attack on Kozarac and said
12 that you personally observed the movement and actions taken by Serb
13 soldiers, as you called it.
14 In the Tadic case, page 938, you said:
15 [In English] "Some of them were uniformed completely, some of
16 them wore jeans and a military shirt above it. Some were younger, some
17 were older. I recognised one of these younger soldiers. I heard some of
18 them, two of them, I heard talking in an accent or dialect which does not
19 come from the area of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and I guess that were young
20 soldiers from Serbia because did how they -- dialect was.
21 [No interpretation]
22 [In English] "Q. Did you see any of the insignias of the
23 uniforms of any of these soldiers or paramilitary troops?
24 "A. They buried -- they were some without any insignias. Some
25 had insignia of the Serbia army, some had insignia which I don't really
1 distinguish them. Those from Vukovar had insignia of the so-called
2 Martic Militia, this army, there were all sorts of them.
3 [Interpretation] In the Kovacevic case, 527 --
4 A. May I give you my comments on this?
5 Q. Wait for me to finish and then I will put my question to you.
6 So I have already put it to you that your testimonies differ.
7 So in the Kovacevic case, 527:
8 [In English] "Q. I could -- how were you able to tell that that
9 are Serbian forces?
10 "A. I could conclude that based on the insignia. I watched them
11 from a short distance. I was hiding in the grass or the bushes by the
12 road and I also knew it because one of the Ukrainians that I have
13 mentioned, in order not to be shot, has forced to put on the uniform and
14 become a member of the Serbian army. He gave some information."
15 [Interpretation] Page 529 to 530 you say:
16 [In English] "I saw few soldiers. They had insignia, two or
17 three types of insignia. The police of region of Krajina, they were --
18 was the JNA insignia and also some insignia I hadn't seen until that
19 time. I saw mixed groups. Some of them had the full uniform on. Some
20 wore jeans and military-type shirt. There were people who were younger,
21 some were older, and I list them in conversation which -- what strange to
23 [Interpretation] And you again referred to the Ekavian dialect or
25 In the Stakic case, again you say:
1 [In English] "I saw soldiers carrying the SAO Krajina insignia or
2 Martic police, as they were referred to at that moment. There were
3 regular JNA soldiers too. There were police officers from Prijedor who
4 were soldiers. They were wearing soldier military uniforms. They were
5 civilians, too, from neighbours recognised those civilians wore military
6 uniforms or parts of military uniforms. That was a mixture of
8 [Interpretation] Yesterday, you said that you saw three groups of
9 soldiers, one group was wearing complete uniforms; the second group had
10 ten soldiers among them and two wearing dark blue police uniforms; and
11 the second -- the third group, you said, was a mixed one comprising
12 persons who had full uniforms and partial uniforms.
13 Can you tell Their Honours which is the interpretation you stand
15 A. I stand by each and every one. These were answers to the
16 specific questions that were put to me which were similar questions but
17 not identical.
18 Sir, you need to distinguish between the various locations I was
19 describing. I already told you that I was able to observe these events
20 on three occasions. On three occasions. You were now referring to the
21 contradiction in the description of the ethnic cleansing at two different
22 locations. And they differed. I could explain and describe to you each
23 and every one of these occasions but it would take some time.
24 Now, the first example you mentioned, and I'm quoting you, as you
25 were quoting to me, that there were uniformed individuals, save for some
1 others. Well, to me, anything other than uniform was a -- were -- was
2 civilian clothes. I wasn't even describing those who weren't in
3 uniforms. I said that some wore full uniforms, others only parts of
5 The second occasion involved APCs -- or, rather, that was the
6 last occasion when I was observing a specific location and there I saw
7 mixed uniforms. My answer would largely depend on the person putting the
8 question and the persons intention of inquiring after details.
9 Q. Thank you. Let's move on to another topic.
10 Did you know that in the Prijedor public security station on the
11 29th of April, a meeting was held, attended by Mr. Cehajic, the president
12 of the municipality; Mr. Mujadzic, SDA president; and Mr. Simo Miskovic
13 from the SDS. They met with the chief of police, Talundzic.
14 Were you informed of this meeting?
15 A. No, I was not, Your Honour.
16 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can we now call up Exhibit 1D150.
17 Q. On this issue, you testified in the other cases as well, that, if
18 I remember correctly, on the 8th of April, orders or instructions came
19 from the Republican Territorial Defence Staff concerning mobilisation of
20 TO units.
21 Do you recall that? We will come to the document later. Please
22 answer my question first.
23 A. Yes. I do know that a Republican TO Staff was set up. I don't
24 recall what sort of an order was issued. I recall that later on there
25 followed an order on mobilisation, whether it was dated on the 8th of
1 April, is not something I can tell.
2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Can the B/C/S version be somewhat
3 enlarged, please.
4 Q. The order was sent by Mr. Alija Delimustafic to all public
5 security stations on the 29th of April. Through this order, he is
6 basically conveying Mr. Hasan Efendic's order, he was the commander of
7 the Republican TO Staff, wherein Mr. Delimustafic orders, under 1:
8 "All roads in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
9 being used by units of the former JNA for pulling out materiel and
10 equipment are to be completely blocked in direct co-ordination with the
11 Ministry of Interior."
12 Under 2:
13 "Larger areas with military installations from which they are
14 trying to pull out materiel and equipment are to be blocked by using
15 various man-made and natural obstacles which will shall be guarded by the
16 units of the Territorial Defence of the republic of BH and the MUP."
17 And under 3:
18 "Unannounced convoys of former JNA units and convoys without a
19 MUP escort shall not be allowed to leave the barracks or to communicate
20 within the territory of the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina."
21 Were you familiar with Mr. Delimustafic's order?
22 A. In your earlier question, you used a term which is not
23 appropriate for this document. Mobilisation of the Territorial Defence
24 is one thing, and operative orders, such as this one, are quite another
25 matter. The republic had issued orders for additional mobilisation of
1 Territorial Defence earlier on; whereas, this particular order is an
2 order on activities to be carried out. The command of the municipality
3 of Prijedor TO Staff was in Prijedor. The makeup was mixed in terms of
4 ethnicities and political parties. At the level of Prijedor, not even an
5 order on the mobilisation of the TO could be implemented because of the
6 obstructions that existed within the TO Staff.
7 Q. Sir, this order, however, states that through various man-made
8 and natural obstacles, which are to be secured by the TO and the MUP. So
9 this involves both the TO and MUP units. Were you familiar with an order
10 of this sort?
11 A. I wasn't informed of this particular order. But I was familiar
12 with the fact that - and you will agree with me - an -- a combat order
13 cannot be issued to a Territorial Defence structure that had not been
14 previously mobilised. This is what concerns the TO.
15 Now, the MUP operated the way it did. This order could
16 definitely not have been implemented, to my knowledge, either through
17 official structures or otherwise, because the local policy was heading in
18 quite a different direction.
19 Q. Sir, what I'm telling you is that this dispatch by
20 Mr. Delimustafic and a similar order by Mr. Hasan Efendic were, in fact,
21 the reason why the takeover took place in the Prijedor on the 30th of
22 April. Will you agree with me?
23 A. I'm sorry, I can't give you a yes-or-no answer, sir. I can't.
24 Several towns had, by that time, been burned in Bosnia-Herzegovina by the
25 time the dispatch was issued. Massacres occurred. That's one thing.
1 There were cannons around Prijedor. Battery positions were placed around
2 Kozarac much earlier than the order itself was issued. So this could
3 have been used as a motive for something, because the SDS authorities
4 knew well what the position of the TO was.
5 The fact of the -- a fact of the matter is that the SUP chief,
6 Hasan Talundzic, did not carry out this particular order de facto and
7 de jure. He could have produced immediately an order based on this one.
8 Why? Well, because there was no intention of having this implemented in
9 Prijedor, to begin with.
10 Q. And were you at this meeting on 29th of April in Prijedor?
11 A. No, I wasn't. But I didn't have this document either, and you're
12 asking me about the document. So I am fully entitled to speak to this
13 document as well and the time-period involved.
14 Q. As regards the Territorial Defence, in addition to what you said,
15 that in early April, the republic staff ordered the mobilisation of TO
16 units, in the Tadic case you said there had been constant communication
17 between the republic TO staff and local staffs and that a decision was
18 made also in Kozarac to re-enforce the TO.
19 Then the Presiding Judge asked you when that decision was taken.
20 And on page 975, you answered that it was seven or ten days before the
21 meeting in Prijedor, which was in mid-May.
22 Do you remember testifying to this?
23 A. Yes, something like that.
24 Q. After the meeting in Prijedor held in mid-May, as you said, you
25 testified in other cases and here that meetings were held in the local
1 commune and that a meeting was held in the school-house in Kozarac, the
2 primary school.
3 Do you remember that?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. You were also asked on page 647 and 648 in Kovacevic case:
6 [In English] "The purpose of the meeting was to have a large
7 number of people make a common decision that would be supported by
9 [Interpretation] You were asked:
10 [In English] "How was the decision reached at the meeting and
11 what was the decision?
12 "A. The decision at the meeting was for us to abide by the laws
13 of Bosnia-Herzegovina because we did not recognise the state that was
14 created by the Serbs. Decision was made to follow the instructions of
15 the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina and our authorities."
16 [Interpretation] To avoid going through your extensive testimony
17 in the Stakic case and others, you have been asked many questions here
18 about the Territorial Defence, the local defence in Kozarac. But you
19 answered most of them by saying that you didn't know that you have no
20 such information. You said you didn't know how many establishment TO
21 units there were in Kozarac and around. You don't know how many men
22 these units had. You don't know how many policemen, in total, there were
23 at the police station in Kozarac, or what kind of weapons and how many
24 weapons had. And you didn't know who the wartime commander was in
25 Kozarac. And that you don't know, because you were not part of the
1 command structure in Kozarac, but you signed up as a regular citizen.
2 Is that fair to say?
3 A. In part.
4 Q. Do you know who Sead Cirkin is?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Who is he?
7 A. Sead Cirkin was appointed -- or, rather, took over the
8 organisation of the Territorial Defence just before the war started. I
9 think it was very little time before the attack. He was a former JNA
10 officer who was demobilised after being wounded, returned home to
11 Kozarac, and then he was engaged to do this work.
12 Q. Does that mean that he was the TO commander in Kozarac?
13 A. No, no. Please. Perhaps he was at that moment when he took over
14 that work, but until then, no. Until that time, it was someone else.
15 Q. Who was that someone else before Cirkin, if you know?
16 A. I know of several people. It could have been one of them. I --
17 I can't say. I'm afraid to make a mistake. I just don't know.
18 Q. Last Friday and yesterday you mentioned a tank that was placed at
19 the intersection just before entering Kozarac. And you said at page
20 17386 that the tank was placed there towards the end of April and
21 remained there until the beginning of May.
22 A. It was an approximate time-frame.
23 Q. Please wait. I'll give you time to answer.
24 In Kovacevic on page 498, you said the tank was placed there on
25 3rd May 1992 and stayed there for a few days. And on page 643, you said
1 that at the time when the tank was placed there, the local population
2 from the other side of the road set up a check-point as some sort of
4 Do you remember saying that?
5 A. Well, perhaps at that time I remembered the exact date. This
6 time around, I find it more difficult to remember dates. But I know that
7 when the tank was brought and the barrel of the gun was trained at
8 houses, I know that local residents placed logs on the road so that if
9 the tank were to move, it couldn't move so easily towards the settlement.
10 The tank remained there for a while, and then it was taken away.
11 Q. You were asked yesterday if you knew that, on the 24th of May,
12 the military column in Jakupovici was attacked, and you said you doubt
13 that that was true, precisely because the tank was in that intersection
14 from the beginning of May.
15 A. It must be a mistake, and I will ask for the audio recording,
16 because I didn't say that.
17 Because it's impossible to associate these two locations. There
18 must be a distance of 6, 7 kilometres between them. What I can tell you
19 and what is related is this: When the tank was placed there, it created
20 a lot of fear. That fear remained. And perhaps what happened in
21 Jakupovici was a result of that fear. And a big question is whether this
22 tank arrived firing or -- or not. And even that event in Jakupovici, I
23 only heard stories about it.
24 Q. In early evidence, and yesterday as well, you said that after the
25 30th of April you had no contact with the SDA leadership. I mean
1 Mr. Mujadzic and the part of the leadership who --
2 A. With some of them I did; with others, I didn't.
3 Q. You don't know if he had any negotiations with Mr. Miskovic after
4 the 30th of April, and if he did, what kind?
5 A. No, I don't know that.
6 Q. You also testified that in other villages on the other side of
7 Prijedor - Hambarine, Carakovo, Ljubija, Rizvanovici, Biscani - they had
8 Territorial Defence, but since they were on the other side of Prijedor,
9 more than 10 kilometres away, you don't know what happened there after
10 the 30th of April?
11 A. I just heard news from the radio and we could see with our own
12 eyes what happened when the artillery started targeted that area.
13 Q. Do you know Mr. Edo Sadikovic?
14 A. I don't know Edo; but I know Veso Sadikovic, the doctor.
15 Q. Do you know who Slavko Ecimovic from Carakovo is?
16 A. I know Zivko Ecim. I don't know Slavko Ecimovic but I know Zivko
17 lived there before.
18 Q. Do you know that the Muslim forces attacked Prijedor town on the
19 30th of May, 1992?
20 A. I heard that from Serbian sources, the Serbian radio and their
21 police communications, and that's the only interpretation of events I
22 heard. I was unable to hear the other side of the story at the time.
23 Q. I quite understand. You also testified that after the 30th of
24 April, you don't know what happened in Prijedor itself. You attended
25 these meetings twice, but you did not leave in Prijedor. You were in
1 Trnopolje and Kozarac on that side where you were in hiding.
2 A. I told you about the details and the atmosphere in Prijedor from
3 that day when I went there. Otherwise, I was not there. I don't know.
4 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, with your leave, I
5 will review my questions during the break and I would appreciate another
6 ten minutes, perhaps, with this witness. Because Mr. Cvijetic will not
7 examine at all. And if I need, I will need only a little -- I'll just
8 organise a little during the break.
9 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Aleksic.
10 So we take the break, to resume in 20 minutes.
11 [The witness stands down]
12 --- Recess taken at 10.25 a.m.
13 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.
14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the witness
15 comes in, I don't have any more questions for this witness. But since we
16 learned only yesterday about that alleged meeting to which delegation was
17 sent from Kozarac to Banja Luka, we had no time to verify that
18 information, and this information is something that he -- the witness
19 received from hearsay or double-hearsay, and I'm not in a position to ask
20 him questions about this meeting. I have no other questions to put to
22 JUDGE HALL: Thank you, Mr. Aleksic.
23 And, Mr. Cvijetic, you confirm that you decline
25 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] That's correct, Your Honour.
1 JUDGE HALL: And will there be any re-examination?
2 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. I'm sorry. I apologise.
3 [The witness takes the stand]
4 MR. OLMSTED: I just want to cover some areas that were raised
5 during cross-examination that might be useful for this Trial Chamber.
6 JUDGE HALL: Mr. Witness, while you were on your way in, counsel
7 for Zupljanin indicated that he, in fact, has no further questions of you
8 so his cross-examination is complete.
9 And counsel for Mr. Stanisic has confirmed that he doesn't intend
10 to cross-examine.
11 So I invite Mr. Olmsted to re-examine you.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE HALL: Sorry.
14 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation]
15 Q. Thank you, Mr. Sejmenovic. Thank you for your answers.
16 Re-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
17 Q. Sir, during cross-examination, you stated that Srdjo Srdic was
18 replaced by Simo Miskovic at some stage as the leader of the SDS in
19 Prijedor. Can you tell us what was Miskovic's relationship like with the
20 SDS in Sarajevo, from what you could observe?
21 A. I cannot, Your Honours, because Miskovic was not in the statement
22 parliament and Srdic was. I also had an opportunity to travel with Srdic
23 and to spend time with him at the parliament but not with Miskovic.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Let's have on the screen 2D128.
25 Q. And these are the minutes of the extraordinary session of
1 Prijedor Municipal Assembly held on 17th of February, 1992.
2 Sir, it is clear from these minutes and also from what Mr.
3 Aleksic read into the record yesterday that the debate, or one of the
4 main issues in the debate, was whether a proposal for the dissolution of
5 the assembly, the Prijedor Assembly should be placed on the agenda. Can
6 you tell what was the position of the SDS leadership Simo Miskovic,
7 Milomir Stakic, with regard to the dissolution of the assembly?
8 A. The SDS, vigorously advocated the dissolution of the assembly,
9 not only at this session but even months earlier.
10 Q. And it's also clear from the minutes that the SDA and HDZ
11 leadership were not in favour of dissolving the assembly at that point in
12 time. Can you explain why?
13 A. It was their position because dissolving that legitimate organ
14 with the prevailing atmosphere, it would have been impossible to either
15 hold new elections or form a new assembly. And the SDS, at the time of
16 this session, of which we have the transcript, had already established
17 its own assembly, a para-state Serbian Assembly.
18 Q. And I was reading through the minutes last night and I noticed
19 there was talk about republican-wide elections being held later that
20 year. Was that another reason why there was really no need to hold a
21 by-election at this stage?
22 A. That was another reason not to hold elections within such a short
23 time because the presidents of the political parties, Karadzic,
24 Izetbegovic and others, had agreed to hold elections within a year. That
25 was by the end of that year.
1 Q. During examination-in-chief, you stated that even though there
2 was this disagreement between the SDS and the other parties with regard
3 to division of power within the municipality, that the government in
4 Prijedor was still able to function. The assembly was still able to
6 Given that state of affairs, was there really a need to dissolve
7 the assembly?
8 A. No. As far as the operation of the assembly is concerned,
9 Your Honours, it had all the necessary conditions to work and it could
10 work normally with the consent of the SDS as it had worked previously for
11 months. All the prestigious but followed sessions were convened,
12 sessions were held. The very fact that the secondary departments of
13 power had not been distributed did not block the work of the assembly.
14 The assembly was a legitimate organ and it sat in its full composition.
15 Also the municipal government functioned in the same way, in its full
16 composition or, rather, the Executive Board as we called it at that time.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Can we turn to page 13 of the B/C/S of this
18 document, page 9 of the English.
19 Q. Now, we see after Miskovic speaks we see that someone by the name
20 of Islam Bahonjic speaks. Who was Mr. Bahonjic?
21 A. Islam Bahonjic was a municipal deputy and a member of the broader
22 SDA leadership in Prijedor and he also went to negotiate in Prijedor to
23 those negotiation meetings when the takeover happened. And he is one of
24 the men who never returned.
25 Q. In the second paragraph, he asks what I believe is a relevant
1 question. He says:
2 "We all know that the SDS has created its own assembly so why
3 this interest in dissolving this civilian assembly?"
4 Now you have already just mentioned that it was -- you were aware
5 in the media, from the media, that the SDS had created its own assembly.
6 Was this question that Mr. Bahonjic posed in the minds of many of the
7 non-Serb representatives at this meeting?
8 A. That is precisely the point of all this session and all the
9 debates with the SDS. It was obvious to all of us. The SDS wanted to
10 dissolve the assembly, did not want to allow a new assembly to be formed.
11 They wanted to proclaim a state of emergency and to impose their own
12 authorities they had already prepared.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, I would like to ask one
14 clarification question.
15 Mr. Witness, you speak about Islam Bahonjic who went to
16 negotiate -- to those negotiation meetings when the takeover happened.
17 And is he one of the men who never returned.
18 I seem to remember that yesterday you spoke about two meetings,
19 one they came back from, and a second one, they never returned from.
20 That's right. But I seem to remember that you were talking then about a
21 meeting in Banja Luka and now you say it's in Prijedor. Can you clarify
22 which one of the two? Where -- where -- where were those meetings held?
23 In Prijedor or in Banja Luka?
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] In this specific case, that is
25 Islam Bahonjic, the man from the minutes, he was present at the second
1 meeting in Prijedor and this delegation was led by the chief of the
2 police, and Bahonjic was a member of that delegation together with some
3 other people.
4 After this second meeting, this delegation never returned.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: And was the first meeting held from Prijedor as
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The first meeting with the police
8 was also held in Prijedor. It was also led by the chief of police, and
9 they were allowed to come back to Kozarac, and then on the second
10 occasion, neither he returned, nor anybody in that delegation.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
12 MR. OLMSTED: And perhaps can I clarify this issue with regard to
13 the Banja Luka meeting, if I show him a document that's on the Defence's
14 exhibit list.
15 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I didn't ask him any
16 questions about this topic. I didn't use a document. I don't think this
17 is the right way to go about this. I believe the Prosecution doesn't
18 have the right to use these documents.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, I'm simply doing this as an aid
20 for the Trial Chamber, but I am at a bit of a disadvantage here because
21 the Defence have decided not to cross-examine on this issue of the
22 Banja Luka meeting and I want to have this witness be able to clarify
23 this issue so perhaps we don't have to call him back a second time to
24 address this issue.
25 JUDGE HALL: And this relates to the adjudicated fact in respect
1 of which this witness was called?
2 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, certainly.
3 It is relating to events in May 1992 leading up to the shelling
4 in Kozarac. These are -- this is the ultimatum that was finally issued
5 that resulted in the shelling. So this time-period is -- I can actually
6 give the facts, if Your Honours believe it is necessary. But it comes
7 directly out of his examination-in-chief as well. Just for the record,
8 I'm referring to this meeting in Banja Luka in which Stojan Zupljanin
9 participated in. And Judge Delvoie's question, he was trying to clarify
10 the Prijedor meetings versus the Banja Luka meetings.
11 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Aleksic.
12 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] With all due respect, that question
13 was never raised in cross-examination and no document was shown. Of
14 course, His Honour Judge Delvoie asked the question, and the witness may
15 respond without being shown any documents.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: The question that the Chamber had asked didn't touch
18 on this particular issue of this meeting in Banja Luka. So, therefore,
19 this isn't something that arises out of cross-examination.
20 So let's move on Mr. Olmsted.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour. If I may just clarify one
22 matter with this witness.
23 Q. Sir, the -- during your examination-in-chief, you mentioned there
24 was a meeting in Banja Luka as well. Is that separate from these
25 Prijedor meetings? That's all I'm asking, just to clarify whether there
1 was another meeting.
2 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Same objection. We have the
3 decision of the Chamber on this matter.
4 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honours --
5 JUDGE HALL: You need not answer that question Mr. -- yes,
6 Mr. Olmsted.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] All right.
8 MR. OLMSTED:
9 Q. Very well. You were asked during cross-examination where you
10 actually -- read to you some of your former testimony regarding the
11 presence of the police during cleansing operations in the Kozarac area
12 following the shelling. And I want to draw your attention to your
13 testimony in the Stakic case. This is at transcript page 4709. And
14 you're talking about these operations, and you state that:
15 "During each of these operations they killed several people.
16 Almost as a rule in a group of 30 houses, there would -- as a rule be two
17 or three victims," et cetera.
18 Then later on, Ms. Korner asks you:
19 "You talk about they, the Serbs, who do mean by that? Was this
20 army or police or a mixture of both?"
21 And you responded:
22 "I mean all of them."
23 Do you stand by that -- that answer?
24 A. Of course, I do, sir. We saw them wearing various different
25 kinds of uniforms and in different locations. On one occasion during
1 this process of ethnic cleansing in the Trnopolje and Omarska camps, and
2 in Prijedor after the takeover of power.
3 Q. Let's have on the screen 65 ter 466.
4 Sir, during cross-examination you were shown two decisions by the
5 Prijedor government from June of 1992 and you were asked a number of
6 questions regarding the relationship between the Prijedor government and
7 the ARK regional government. And I want you to take a look at this
8 decision, number 18, which is on the organisation and work of the
9 Prijedor Crisis Staff.
10 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could just turn to the last page.
11 Q. We see that it's dated 20 May 1992. And if we look at
12 Article 11, which is on this page, it says:
13 "The provisions of the constitution, the law, and decision [sic]
14 adopted by the Assembly, the Presidency and ... government of the Serbian
15 Republic of BH ... and the responsible organs of the Autonomous Region of
16 the Banja Luka Krajina have been and shall remain the foundation for the
17 work of the Prijedor municipal Crisis Staff."
18 So, sir, at least in May 1992, there was no conflict, at least no
19 apparent conflict, between the Prijedor authorities and the ARK
21 A. No, there weren't. In my early evidence, I said what I heard
22 about this conflict, and I believe that in one of my testimonies I said
23 what Kupresanin had told me; namely, that it was difficult for him to get
24 a document for me to leave the area. And it was then that I realised
25 that he was in a political conflict, and I think I can say literally with
1 Vukic, with Brdjo, as he called him, or Brdjanin, and with Zupljanin. He
2 needed to get a document for me from the police, but the recommendation
3 for me was not to seek this document from the police, instead he gave me
4 this document with the seal of the practically non-existent Autonomous
5 Region of Krajina.
6 Q. Let's look at P555. And, Your Honours, I believe that last
7 document is in the law library as well. If not, of course, it should be
8 added to it.
9 This document is a dispatch from CSB Banja Luka to all SJB chiefs
10 dated 4 May 1992, and I just want you to take a look at item 1 through
11 which the CSB Banja Luka conveys the decision by the ARK government that
12 the full and public mobilisation on the entire territory of the
13 Autonomous Region of Krajina is hereby ordered.
14 Sir, do you recall in May 1992 hearing announcements to this
16 A. Yes, through the media.
17 Q. And you said you heard it through the media. Who was issuing
18 these announcements?
19 A. It was on the Banja Luka TV, and you could also hear it on local
20 radio stations. But I know that this was announced on several occasions
21 on television. I don't know in what form. And also on the radio
22 stations. I can't quote what exactly was said, but we know that there
23 was order for general mobilisation.
24 Q. And if we look at number 4, the CSB Banja Luka conveys the ARK
25 government's decision that a curfew is to be introduced. Do you recall
1 hearing announcements on the Prijedor local radio to that effect as well?
2 A. I know that a curfew was introduced. I believe it might have
3 been even a day or two before the 4th of May that a curfew was introduced
4 in the Prijedor area, and it was in place until further notice. It was
5 not abolished until the attack on Hambarine and Kozarac.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Let's look quickly at 65 ter 10216.
7 And, again, Your Honours, this should be a document is that in
8 the law library.
9 This is the Official Gazette of the Autonomous Region of Krajina.
10 And if we could turn to page 6 of the B/C/S, page 13 of the English.
11 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] I'm sorry, what's the tab number of
12 this document?
13 MR. OLMSTED: There is no tab. This is a document that I brought
14 up in response to your cross-examination regarding the relationship
15 between the ARK and the Prijedor government.
16 Q. I want you to take a look at decision number 45. It states:
17 "The proper municipal organs of administration shall be informed
18 of all abandoned property, which shall then be proclaimed property of the
19 state and placed at the disposal of the municipal assemblies."
20 And if we look at the end of this decision, it's numbered
21 03-513/92 and it's dated 19 June 1992.
22 If we could now look at 65 ter 492. This is tab 12.
23 And this is a proposal for a decision on proclaiming abandoned
24 property, property of the state, and it's from 1992. In the first
25 paragraph it states that:
1 "This decision is made pursuant to, among other laws, the
2 decision of the Crisis Staff of the ARK number 03-513/92 dated 19
3 June 1992."
4 And under item number 1 it states:
5 "All abandoned property (real estate and moveable items) of
6 persons who have left the territory of Prijedor municipality, and of
7 persons who participated in the armed uprising is temporarily proclaimed
8 state property, the Prijedor municipality becoming entitled to all
9 possession rights."
10 After the attack on Kozarac, do you recall hearing announcements
11 to this effect over the radio?
12 A. Yes. There were some practical things that happened in the field
13 which confirmed this.
14 Q. And can you explain that just briefly to us.
15 A. Here's a specific example: During the last mop-up operations, the
16 army seized certain property, cars or tractors, and in some cases they
17 issued papers to the owners, saying that this was an order to seize their
18 property and that it had been issued by the municipality. I know that
19 some people received such documents. And soon in Trnopolje, the Serbian
20 forces approved very near the camp certain Serbian families to move into
21 the houses of people who were only 500 metres away in the camp with their
22 families. This wasn't spontaneous. During the time that I was in the
23 field, they had already moved into several houses.
24 Q. You mentioned "some people."
25 To your knowledge, were there any Serbs who had their property
1 confiscated after they left the municipality pursuant to this decision?
2 A. No, there weren't. There weren't. Only -- it related only to
4 MR. OLMSTED: May this be admitted into evidence, Your Honours.
5 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, first of all, an
6 intervention for the transcript. 42, line 3:
7 [In English] "... that it had been issued by the municipality."
8 [Interpretation] I believe the witness said, "I don't know who
9 issued this."
10 And as for tendering this document, this is a proposed decision.
11 There is no date, there's no seal, there's no signature, that's one
12 thing. It's only a draft.
13 And the second thing, this document and the one shown before are
14 not identical; for example, Article 1 which Mr. Olmsted read. So I
15 oppose tendering this document. We have the testimony of the witness
16 about what his knowledge is.
17 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, these arguments seem to go to weight.
18 This witness was able to testify that he did hear this type of decision
19 announced over the radio. He also knows that it was implemented and he
20 gave examples of its implementation. So --
21 JUDGE HALL: That's the testimony. But if -- as Mr. Aleksic
22 says, this is only a draft.
23 So wouldn't that be admitting it -- isn't that an attempt to give
24 it a higher status than it, in fact, has?
25 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honour, again that's an issue of weight.
1 This witness says that he heard this kind of decision issued over the
2 public radio and, therefore, that -- we would contend indicates that the
3 decision was, in fact, passed and implemented. Because otherwise it
4 wouldn't be announced over the radio, it wouldn't have been implemented
5 in the field.
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours.
8 JUDGE HALL: Yes, Mr. Aleksic.
9 MR. ALEKSIC: [Interpretation] The witness wasn't saying this for
10 this document but the previous document which is already in the law
11 library. And also, I didn't pursue this line of questioning. It would
12 be very general. I didn't go into this specific line of questions. If
13 that's how we understand things, then Mr. Olmsted could take this entire
14 Official Gazette and show every single document to the witness.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, the issue at stake here is whether
16 there was co-operation between the ARK government and the government in
17 Prijedor. There -- this document is directly linked to an ARK
18 Crisis Staff decision that I showed this witness previously. This one we
19 agree is a proposal. It's a draft. However, because it was announced
20 publicly at some stage, it, therefore, must have become -- or, at least,
21 we're going contend that it became official and this simple corroborates
22 the testimony of this witness.
23 [Trial Chamber confers]
24 JUDGE HALL: We have the witness's testimony. It is not
25 necessary -- without ruling definitively on the objections made by
1 Mr. Aleksic, this document would not be admitted.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, may I beg the Trial Chamber's
3 indulgence to mark it for identification in the event that we can use it
4 for another witness who will perhaps know more and be able to
5 authenticate it further?
6 [Trial Chamber confers]
7 JUDGE HALL: The evidential problem remains that it is only a
8 draft and whereas arguments could be made as to the -- what weight should
9 be attached to it, I would suggest -- well, I should say it seems to me,
10 Mr. Olmsted, that as the Prosecution's case winds up, you find there's a
11 witness in respect of whom this document could be usefully used, then we
12 could return to it. But I don't see the need to even mark it at this
14 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Your Honour.
15 Q. Sir, just one more topic I want to cover very briefly with you.
16 You were asked a few questions regarding the expansion of the
17 Kozarac TO and I want to see if we can clarify the time-line here.
18 Now, you have testified regarding this meeting in mid-May with
19 the SDS leadership and others at which this ultimatum was issued to
20 surrender weapons or -- and other things, or, as Commander Zeljaja
21 stated, Kozarac would be flattened.
22 Now, after this meeting, you've testified that you returned to
23 Kozarac, and you conveyed this ultimatum to the leadership in Kozarac.
24 My question for you is: Is this when the decision was made to expand the
25 TO, to start going around and getting lists of volunteers to determine
1 whether it's possible to increase the size of the TO to provide a
3 A. That was the period when intensive activities were underway to
4 turn the TO into a proper establishment. The establishment of the TO
5 practically started the same day when we returned from the meeting at
6 which the ultimatum was issued. We didn't even manage to finish this
7 list. There was no time and there was no opportunity to go visit
8 somebody for a second time and ask for their consent. You could notice
9 about the lists that a certain number of people were said not to be at
10 home. There was no time to go back the next day or the day after and see
11 whether that particular person was at home.
12 MR. OLMSTED: No further questions, Your Honour.
13 JUDGE HALL: Well, we thank you for your assistance to the
14 Tribunal. Your testimony is at an end, and you're now released as a
15 witness and we wish you a safe journey back to your home. Thank you,
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
20 JUDGE HARHOFF: Mr. Hannis, is it still your position that we
21 should still try and have an extended session this afternoon with
22 Witness ST-258?
23 MR. HANNIS: Your Honours, I think I would ask Ms. Pidwell to
24 speak to that. She can address it more competently that I can, I think.
25 JUDGE HARHOFF: Thank you.
1 MS. PIDWELL: Good morning, Your Honours.
2 JUDGE HARHOFF: Good morning to you, Ms. Pidwell. Can you help
3 us out?
4 MS. PIDWELL: It's really a matter for -- it's really hard to
5 estimate how long Defence will be in their cross-examination of this
6 witness. I anticipate I will be no longer than a session. He is only
7 speaking to two adjudicated facts. The Defence previously -- or have
8 stipulated to three of them, so the OTP original estimate is now reduced.
9 He has never testified before. So it's hard to predict how he'll go.
10 But I'm not aware -- well, Mr. Krgovic indicated earlier that his
11 cross-examination may take a session. I don't know if he is able to
12 provide any more of an assistance in the estimates at this stage, because
13 there has been no change in circumstances since then.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Cvijetic, what are you -- what are your
16 MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, I can't give you
17 accurate estimate. I looked through the statements of this witness, and
18 he is constantly changing them.
19 In August of 2010, he changed what he had said before. I see now
20 in the proofing note he said something other than what he had said in
21 August. So a lot will depend on what he is going to say in court.
22 You might have noticed that we do our -- that we focus our
23 cross-examination depending on the relevance of a witness. I believe
24 that this witness is more relevant to the Defence of Mr. Zupljanin, so I
25 will try and talk to my learned friend, Mr. Krgovic, so that he would do
1 most of the cross-examination, and if anything remains uncovered, then I
2 might have some questions, but I can't confirm to you that I won't have
3 any questions at all.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
6 JUDGE HALL: Inasmuch as there is a courtroom available this
7 afternoon, from what counsel on both side versus indicated, it seems that
8 we should begin, on the assumption that there is a real likelihood that
9 we could, with the one extended session this afternoon, complete this
11 [Trial Chamber confers]
12 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
13 JUDGE HALL: So we would have the extra session this afternoon.
14 But the first step is that we have been alerted that an application is to
15 be made in respect of this witness.
16 [Trial Chamber confers]
17 JUDGE HALL: To make assurance doubly sure, counsel for the
18 Defence are agreed on the extra session this afternoon, are they?
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, if we finish earlier,
20 the problem is if we go beyond that one session. I don't know how long I
21 will take. It depends on the answers the witness will provide.
22 I went through the application for protective measures, and again
23 I see that the Prosecutor has expanded the application. The witness will
24 speak to two adjudicated facts only. Now, the Prosecutor, in his
25 application for protective measures, states that the witness would
1 testify to other facts as well, so it is very difficult for me to tell.
2 I will do my best to complete my cross-examination within the
3 extra session we have, but I cannot guarantee that.
4 JUDGE HALL: That was all I wanted confirmation of, Mr. Krgovic.
5 We haven't gotten to the question of protective measures yet. But the --
6 I just needed to know whether counsel for the Defence was on board with
7 the -- what I understand to be the -- what we are going to do, that we
8 will be begin on the assumption that, with the extra session, we could
9 complete this witness. And once we -- I appreciate that you don't know
10 exactly where you're going to go. I fully understand that. But the
11 common agreement is that there's a possibility that we could so complete
12 and, therefore, we will begin.
13 Now, the matter of the application, which is before us.
14 MS. PIDWELL: Yes, Your Honours. A motion was filed yesterday
15 and I don't think there's been a formal response from the Defence in the
16 short time-frame.
17 The witness is ready to address Your Honours directly on his
18 concerns, if you so require. It's one of the situations we've become
19 familiar with over the past few months where the witness raises the
20 issues arriving here in The Hague for the first time and his concerns are
21 set out in the motion and if Your Honour would say like more
22 clarification or particulars, he is ready to address you formally.
23 JUDGE HALL: So although the Defence would not have had an
24 opportunity to respond because of the recency of the filing, we propose
25 to adopt the usual course of calling the witness in and examining him and
1 the Defence will have an opportunity, if they wish, to ask any questions
2 before we rule.
3 Yes, Mr. Krgovic.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, before the witness is
5 brought into the courtroom, if the witness will testify to the
6 adjudicated facts in respect of which he has been called, and if he will
7 testify to the matters as envisaged, the Defence will have no problems
8 with that. Adjudicated facts do not require protective measures.
9 However, if the witness will testify to what has been stated
10 under paragraph 3 of this motion about Stojan Zupljanin and other
11 matters, we will have difficulty with that, because the Prosecutor's
12 intention is to go beyond the scope of matters the witness was called for
13 to begin with, and this is the third or the fourth witness who has had
14 his scope of testimony expanded. And it is through the back door in the
15 third half-time, so to speak, that the OTP seems to attempt to have
16 evidence admitted. And that's the problem I have with this course of
18 [Trial Chamber confers]
19 [Prosecution counsel confer]
20 JUDGE HALL: So we will go into closed session to hear the
21 witness's -- to hear the witness on the application.
22 [Trial Chamber confers]
23 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
24 [Closed session]
11 Pages 17529-17535 redacted. Closed session.
10 [Open session]
11 [The witness takes the stand]
12 --- On resuming at 12.28 p.m.
13 JUDGE HALL: Inasmuch as the ruling that was made just before the
14 adjournment was made in closed session, I now repeat it in open session
15 and it also provides the opportunity to clarify what may not have been
16 clearly articulated at the time it was delivered. The only application
17 on which the Chamber rules is the application for protective measures in
18 respect of the witness who is about to be called, and -- but the Chamber
19 anticipates that what was highlighted in the written motion that it will,
20 in the course of this witness's testimony, also have to rule on the
21 question of whether the Prosecution will be permitted to ask questions
22 beyond the specified adjudicated facts dealing with a particular meeting,
23 which is -- the details of which appear in the motion. And the
24 anticipated ruling that the Chamber may give on that, which was a factor
25 in the ruling that it makes, in terms of protective measures, is that the
1 witness is afforded the protective measures of a pseudonym, and voice and
2 face distortion. And in respect that separate ruling, it is by a
3 majority; Judge Harhoff dissenting.
4 [Trial Chamber confers]
5 JUDGE HALL: The -- I believe we already have the witness's name
6 and ethnicity on the record. If we could go into private session so that
7 the usual preliminary questions can be asked by the Bench and then we
8 will revert to open session, yes.
9 [Private session]
11 Pages 17538-17547 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're in open session. Thank you.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Ms. Pidwell, do you intend to go into the
5 takeover as such?
6 MS. PIDWELL: Yes, I do.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is that within the scope of adjudicated facts? I
8 suppose you're referring to 521, but there the takeover is only mentioned
9 as a date. That's -- that's a time-line.
10 MS. PIDWELL: 520 is the adjudicated fact.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Pardon?
12 MS. PIDWELL: 520.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: 520, yes.
14 MS. PIDWELL: Yes, sir. And it talks about the involvement of
15 the police in the takeover on the 11th of June. This witness will give
16 evidence about his detention on that day.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: It talks about -- about the involvement -- the
18 involvement of the -- of the police in detaining Serbs and Croats; right?
19 Not the takeover as such.
20 MS. PIDWELL: Sir, that -- that's correct. I'm going to ask him
21 questions about the day before, what he was doing, and what happened to
22 him personally on that day.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Very well.
24 JUDGE HALL: So the question is whether, in your submission, this
25 falls within the -- having regard to our earlier rulings which I needn't
1 repeat at this stage, whether this is within the context of the
2 adjudicated facts indicated.
3 We -- the -- I -- I come back to where we began, that we haven't
4 yet ruled on whether you would be permitted to do that and you needn't
5 repeat what you would have said. It's just that we need to make a ruling
6 for the record.
7 MS. PIDWELL: I have, in fact, covered that, Your Honour,
8 already. I intend now to go to the essence of the adjudicated fact.
9 JUDGE HALL: The -- questions I thought you had covered that. I
10 wasn't sure where we were going. Because it would have been necessary
11 for me to indicate for the record that the permission for you to go -- to
12 lead that was a majority decision in which Judge Harhoff -- Judge Delvoie
14 So although it is after the fact, I'm, nevertheless, putting it
15 in for the record.
16 Please continue.
17 MS. PIDWELL: Thank you.
18 Q. Sir, we are in open session now, so if you could just please be
19 careful in -- not to mention any names or any facts that can potentially
20 identify you; and if we get into some difficulty, we will go back into
21 closed session.
22 Without saying what position you held, did you go to work on the
23 10th of June, 1992?
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. Was there anything unusual that occurred on that day that draw --
1 was drawn to your attention, or was it just a normal working day?
2 A. It was a normal working day.
3 Q. Was your boss present at work on that day?
4 A. He was.
5 Q. And was your deputy present at work on that day?
6 A. He was.
7 Q. Do you recall what time you went home?
8 A. I went home after work, around 4.00 in the afternoon.
9 Q. And did anything unusual occur that night that was brought to
10 your attention?
11 A. Nothing unusual until 11.00 in the evening, when all the lights
12 went out in town and all the telephone lines got cut off.
13 Q. Had that happened previously in your area, or was this the first
15 A. The electricity would get cut off if the weather was bad, but
16 that wasn't very often. This would have happened if circumstances were
17 bad. And the same thing happened this night.
18 Q. The next day, what time did you leave your home to go to work?
22 (redacted). And from further away, I could hear
23 shooting. It was a Muslim holiday, Bajram. There's a village above
24 Kotor Varos called Ravne and I thought that after the morning prayer
25 people were celebrating their religious holiday by shooting in the air.
1 That was a custom in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
2 As I walked further towards the police station, near the primary
3 school I noticed some armed men, and they had red berets on their heads.
4 They had flakjackets, leather gloves, long-barrelled, and with insignia
5 of Republika Srpska. They also had short-barrelled weapons and
6 handcuffs. (redacted)
9 Q. [Previous translation continues] ... could we redact, please,
10 page 71, lines 9 to 11 and also lines 21 to 23. I think at this juncture
11 it may be better to go back into private session, Your Honours.
12 [Private session]
11 Pages 17552-17576 redacted. Private session.
12 [Open session]
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, we're back kin open session. Thank
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. We are in open session now and when you answer my questions
17 please be careful not to identify yourself by mentioning the position you
18 occupied or any names, et cetera. Use formations like, The place which
19 I -- where I worked, and, My job, et cetera.
20 Now, at the last set of questions from Ms. Pidwell was based on
21 that video film of your interrogation. Basically, in that video footage,
22 you did not say anything that would incriminate you. You did not imply
23 yourself in any of the illegal activities, such as arming, and you did
24 not say you had any direct knowledge about the distribution of weapons.
25 A. Yes. I believe that in no way, by no action, or word, did I
1 incriminate myself or participate in any way in preparations for armed
2 insurgency. I always tried to be a professional and act professionally,
3 although I was not a career policeman. I thought that a policeman should
4 treat everyone equally, Serb, Croats, and Muslims. And I never
5 participated in any form of self-organisation.
6 Q. And in this video we see when you say, I have no direct
7 knowledge, that's the first thing you say, I have no direct knowledge,
8 nor did I in any way participate in the distribution of weapons.
9 A. Yes. What I said in that interview is, as we termed it in the
10 police, for public purposes. And I said what I heard from the rumours,
11 from street talk, what was going around, what stories circulated in pubs
12 and bars and in the streets. I also heard from one HDZ session that the
13 HDZ had those radio stations.
14 Shall I continue?
15 Q. I'll show you the transcript of what you are quoting.
16 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we see -- it's 65 ter 672.
17 Tab 16 in the Zupljanin Defence binder. Not to be broadcast, please.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Krgovic, did you say tab 16?
19 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Sorry, 15, Your Honours.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: 15. Yes, I see it now. Thank you.
21 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
22 Q. Sir, this is from a meeting. I will not say of which body. You
23 can see that. And here among the people present, you see your name.
24 Look at the top. 5th of March; right?
25 A. Yes. I can see my name. I was invited to that meeting. It's an
1 expanded meeting of the HDZ held on 5 March 1992. I was invited to
2 present the security situation in the area of Kotor Varos.
3 Q. Look at the agenda. Paragraph AD 1, second paragraph, and the
4 last sentence says:
5 "We also have communications, so it will be easier to inform all
7 That's true; right?
8 A. Yes. This is a reference to those radios.
9 Now we live in modern times, we all have cell phones, but at that
10 time the municipality of Kotor Varos was very badly covered by the public
11 telephone network. I don't know what the party meant with this. If they
12 had already been preparing for war, it was much too early and very
13 sensitive. And from what I know, there were communications between HDZ
14 party leaders in various villages, because, at that time, the -- the
15 municipality was not fully covered by telephone. And these
16 communications, of course, could be also used for war purposes. And when
17 we were detained in Maslovare, we asked Mr. Pejic to have secret
18 negotiations with Mr. Mato Bjelobrk, who was supposed to organise the
19 surrender of these radio -- radio stations. I don't know whether that
20 talk ever took place, because I was detained but I know this man,
21 Bjelobrk, was later killed.
22 Q. [No interpretation]
23 A. That's right. It's about these radio stations but even I did not
24 know these details until I came to that meeting.
25 MS. PIDWELL: [Microphone not activated] Sorry, Your Honours, I
1 don't think the question was recorded.
2 MR. KRGOVIC: I noticed that.
3 Q. [Interpretation] I'm sorry, sir, my question was not recorded
4 because all -- because of all there turning off and turning on of
6 I asked you if these were the radio stations discussed at this
7 meeting. Are they the same radio stations that you mentioned in the
8 video - that was the essence of my question - right?
9 A. Yes, that's correct.
10 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, can I have an
11 exhibit number for this document.
12 JUDGE HALL: Admitted and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: As exhibit number 2 -- okay.
14 As Exhibit 2D00-129, under seal, Your Honours.
15 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Apart from that interview -- in fact, do you remember whether
17 everything was recorded in that video or were you questioned beyond what
18 was shown in the footage.
19 A. I think the video shows it all.
20 Q. And in that interview, as far as I was able to see, you did not
21 say anything that could incriminate you or could indicate your
22 participation in anything illegal.
23 A. I was in no way involved, so I could not incriminate myself, and
24 I always assumed that if I got involved in something, it couldn't be good
25 for me.
1 Q. The Prosecution asked you about your status, if you were a
2 policeman or a military man. And I'll ask you about a certain quandry we
3 have about certain documents.
4 MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we have 2D13 shown to the
5 witness, please.
6 This is a list from the Croatia Republic of Herceg-Bosna, the
7 defence ministry, a list of persons recorded in the Defence Department or
8 the draft office of Kotor Varos.
9 Can we show ERN -- I won't tell you which number of the page it
10 is for a reason. It's ERN 0714620. 0071-4620.
11 [In English] Can we go to a private session for a moment,
12 Your Honour.
13 [Private session]
11 Pages 17582-17602 redacted. Private session.
11 [Open session]
12 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honours, for the record, we are back in
13 open session. Thank you.
14 JUDGE HALL: Sir, we thank you for your assistance to the
15 Tribunal. You are now released as a witness and we wish you a safe
16 journey back to your home.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you very much.
18 [The witness withdrew]
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good-bye.
20 JUDGE HALL: And the shutters can be raised again.
21 We are grateful to the interpreters, the court reporters, the
22 remainder of the support staff, and, indeed, the accused themselves for
23 accommodating the witness who, otherwise would have had to have been --
24 would have had to remain here over what would have been an extended
25 weekend in order to complete his testimony.
1 So we will take the adjournment now, to reconvene in this
2 courtroom on Monday afternoon, at what point we are scheduled to receive
3 the testimony by videolink of a witness. We are in receipt of a motion
4 from the Prosecution in terms of protective measures in respect of that
5 witness and we would begin on Monday afternoon by asking the Defence for
6 their oral responses to that -- to that application, which they would
7 have had the ...
8 [Trial Chamber confers]
9 JUDGE HALL: Unless, of course, they're in a position to do it
10 now. But I didn't ...
11 So we aren't pressing you to do it now, but as I said we get your
12 responses on Monday afternoon.
13 There is one small matter that does concern the Chamber,
14 Ms. Pidwell, and it is the experience with the witness who has just been
15 released, in that the modified protective measures and having to go into
16 private session for such an extended period of his testimony, when,
17 effectively, the entire testimony is taken in closed session so that is
18 something we would have to bear in mind in the future, should we have to
19 consider future applications.
20 But we take the adjournment now to Monday afternoon, and I wish
21 everyone a safe weekend.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.12 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Monday, the 22nd day of
24 November, 2010, at 2.15 p.m.