1 Monday, 27 May 2002

2 [Open session]

3 --- Upon commencing at 9.19 a.m.

4 [The accused entered court]

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Registrar, can you call the case, please.

6 THE REGISTRAR: Yes, Your Honour. This is the case number,

7 IT-99-36-T, the Prosecutor versus Radoslav Brdjanin and Momir Talic.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Brdjanin, good morning to you. Can you hear me

9 in a language that you can understand?

10 THE ACCUSED BRDJANIN: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

11 Yes, I can hear and understand you.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, you may sit down.

13 General Talic, can you hear me in a language that you can

14 understand?

15 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

16 Yes, I can hear you in a language I understand.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you. You may sit down.

18 Appearances for the Prosecution.

19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, Joanna Korner, Andrew Cayley, assisted

20 by Denise Gustin, case manager. Good morning, Your Honours.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning to you.

22 Appearances for Radoslav Brdjanin.

23 MR. ACKERMAN: Your Honour, I'm John Ackerman, I appear with Tanja

24 Radosavljevic and Milan Trbojevic. Good morning to all of you.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Appearances for General Momir Talic.

1 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Good morning, Your Honour.

2 I'm Natasha Ivanovic-Fauveau representing General Talic with Fabien

3 Masson. And I wish to apologise for my delay because I needed to consult

4 with my client.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. The Chamber would have appreciated had you

6 informed Madam Registrar before so that at least we would have utilised

7 the time in our chambers rather than standing here in the corridors not

8 knowing exactly how long it was going to take. But I understand it was an

9 important meeting that you needed to have with your client. And I

10 appreciate that your client is not available much earlier -- much before

11 the sitting is scheduled to start. But please in the future try to avoid

12 having this happening again.

13 Yes. Would you like to say something, General Talic?

14 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Your Honour. I would

15 like my defence not to proceed in this way, and I wish to change my

16 attorney. I should like to talk to attorney Slobodan Zecevic for Natasha

17 to remain in the team for the trial to continue with Ms. Natasha Fauveau

18 conducting the proceedings until the formalities are completed over

19 attorney Zecevic. Mr. De Roux would remain as a consultant in the

20 Defence team. Thank you, Your Honour, for hearing me out.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I thank you, General Talic. Have you informed

22 and have you started the -- your discussions with the office -- with the

23 office of this Tribunal that these -- with this matter -- with these

24 matters?

25 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Unfortunately I have not, but

1 I will do so during the day.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.

3 You may sit down, General Talic. Please feel free to express your

4 concerns on these matters with the Trial Chamber at any time. And you

5 will have the support and the help of the Trial Chamber in making sure

6 that you are adequately represented in this -- in these proceedings.

7 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I want you to know, both of you -- both Mr. Brdjanin

9 and yourself -- that your interests are the interests of the Trial

10 Chamber.

11 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] That is quite clear to me, and

12 I hope so too for Mr. Brdjanin.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

14 Ms. Fauveau.

15 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I should simply like to say

16 that I will do everything I can to speed up the procedure, and I will

17 contact Mr. Zecevic immediately after today's hearing.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Is Mr. Zecevic -- and forgive me if I am not

19 pronouncing his name well -- present here in The Hague, or is he somewhere

20 else and needs to be contacted?

21 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] No. He's in Belgrade just

22 now. But I think he's ready to come as quickly as possible in a very

23 short time, anyway.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. That concludes the part on General Talic.

25 One moment, Ms. Korner.

1 Mr. Ackerman, I have been handed an official confirmation that

2 Mr. Trbojevic has been appointed co-counsel. I do notice that the form

3 adopted and the words adopted by the office in this particular appointment

4 are somewhat different, that they have -- than they have been in the

5 past. I would like you to come forward as soon as practicable with the

6 confirmation that I had asked of you when Ms. Radosavljevic --

7 Madam Radosavljevic was appointed co-counsel temporarily, asking you to

8 make the same declaration with regard to your new co-counsel, because it's

9 important for this Tribunal to know that at any time you are not in a

10 position to be present, that he can take over and continue.

11 MR. ACKERMAN: I can just say, Your Honour, that he has been

12 working very hard trying to get caught up with the -- what has happened so

13 far in the case. He's been going through the exhibits, going through a

14 lot of the witness statements, things like that. He can't, of course, go

15 through the transcripts, because they're not available in B/C/S, and we're

16 trying to figure out a way to bring him up to date with regard to those

17 and will. But I think he will be fully participating in this case by the

18 end of this week, if not early part of next week.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

20 Ms. Korner.

21 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I have a couple of matters to raise this

22 morning, one which is going to take a little bit of time. But on what's

23 just been said by General Talic -- because obviously it affects witnesses.

24 Do I understand this, that the gentleman from Serbia -- well, first of

25 all, he has to be appointed by the Registry -- will be taking over as lead

1 counsel --

2 JUDGE AGIUS: That's how I -- that's how I have understood it.

3 But I don't know. Maybe General Talic would like to clarify that.

4 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Yes. He will be lead

5 counsel.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: That's how I understood it. Yes.

7 Thank you, General Talic.

8 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, that's -- you see, this is what's

9 going to maybe cause a problem. And I really raise it now for the time

10 being just so that it's mentioned. As Mr. Ackerman has just said in

11 respect of Mr. Trbojevic, it's going to take some time, particularly for

12 someone who doesn't read English or French --

13 JUDGE AGIUS: I don't know.

14 MS. KORNER: -- To catch up with the --

15 JUDGE AGIUS: You are assuming that he doesn't. I mean, I'm not

16 making that assumption.

17 Madam Fauveau.

18 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think there'll be no

19 problem. Mr. Zecevic speaks English perfectly. He was involved in

20 another case. So I don't think he will have any problems. In fact, I've

21 already spoken to the Registry, and I don't think there will be any

22 problems.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Sorry for interrupting you the way I did,

24 Ms. Korner. But --

25 MS. KORNER: It saves time, Your Honour, if that's right, if he

1 speaks some -- fluent English.

2 Your Honour, may I raise then the two matters. One is a short and

3 fairly simple one, I hope. I received a letter from Madam Fauveau in

4 which she stated that on behalf of General Talic, there was -- they did

5 not contest the fact of the killings in the village of Skrljevita.

6 That's the one that Kajtez was --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

8 MS. KORNER: And indeed that at least one of the perpetrators was

9 a member of the Army of the Republika Srpska. And there are various

10 caveats, but they needn't -- Your Honours needn't worry about them at this

11 stage.

12 All that I want to know is -- because this witness, the witness

13 who's due to testify to these events, is due to arrive next week to

14 testify. And I've asked Madam Fauveau whether in those circumstances, the

15 statement can be read. I notice there's no -- there's no way apparently

16 in the Rules of reading a statement without getting a Rule 92 declaration.

17 But that can be achieved, I hope, without too much difficulty at some

18 stage. But I need to have an answer this week so we don't bring the

19 witness here unnecessarily. And I'm taking it from Mr. Ackerman's

20 comments last time a witness came where there was no dispute as to the

21 killing that he takes the same line as Madam Fauveau; in other words, that

22 there's no dispute. But I need to raise that now, so that I need an

23 answer about this particular witness, who is Witness 7.76 -- whether that

24 statement can be read. So I raise that now.

25 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I should like to ask

1 Madam Korner whether I could give my answer tomorrow.

2 MS. KORNER: And I -- I don't know whether Mr. Ackerman has got

3 any comments on this particular ...

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman.

5 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, Your Honour, I had filed a letter saying that

6 I do not contest the -- the actual killings themselves, that the people

7 were in fact killed. That's still my position.

8 MS. KORNER: Well, I need to know whether I need to call the

9 witness at all or whether that statement will be accepted or read under --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the point --

11 MS. KORNER: -- Rule 92.

12 JUDGE AGIUS: That's the point being made by Ms. Korner, actually.

13 It's not whether you still contest or not contest.

14 MR. ACKERMAN: I have no desire to see the witness. The statement

15 is fine for me. But it really affects -- it doesn't affect us. It really

16 affects General Talic. So I --

17 JUDGE AGIUS: I know.

18 MR. ACKERMAN: It shouldn't turn on the way I feel about it.

19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, there's the second matter I have to turn

20 to is I'm afraid going to take a little longer. And that's -- it relates

21 to the cross-examination last week of Judge Draganovic. Your Honour, I

22 think I should preface what I have to say by, I think, reminding all of us

23 that these proceedings are being held in an international arena and

24 they're being widely publicised, particularly in the territories of the

25 former Yugoslavia.

1 Your Honour, it's my understanding and belief and, if you like,

2 training, that counsel in particular are under a duty to behave with

3 propriety and to ensure that allegations which could be described as those

4 being of a scandalous nature in the widest form of the word are not made

5 without due consideration and reflection and most importantly without some

6 proper foundation for making such an allegation, whether it's from

7 reliable evidence or from instructions, but above all it should, we

8 submit, have some relevance to the issues in the case and not merely be,

9 if I can put it that way, a scatter-gun approach which is designed to

10 really throw a lot of mud.

11 Now, Your Honour, the witnesses who appear here in trials of these

12 sort -- and it doesn't matter whether they're trials of alleged Croat

13 perpetrators or Serb or Muslim. Nearly all of the witnesses will fall

14 into the category in some aspect or another of that of a victim. And Your

15 Honour, the Statute recognise that, because in Article 22 it's stated

16 that: "The International Tribunal shall provide in its Rules of Procedure

17 and Evidence for the protection of victims and witnesses such protection

18 measures shall include but shall not be limited to" -- and I emphasise

19 that -- "the conduct of in camera proceedings and the protections of

20 victim's identities."

21 Your Honour, in Rule 75 it's stated that -- this is Rule 75(C):

22 "A Chamber shall whenever necessary control the manner of questioning to

23 avoid any harassment or intimidation."

24 Your Honours, in fact -- or Your Honour, the opening remarks that

25 you made before the case was opened on the 23rd of January in the

1 transcript at page 679 in fact set out, as it were, the rules that you

2 wished counsel and others to follow in this trial. And clearly Your

3 Honour had in mind the code of conduct that has been drafted for Defence

4 counsel, because when I looked at that, it was quite clear that parts had

5 been quoted. And I include -- Your Honour, this is page 679, line 22.

6 "We'll be on the watch out for something which is fundamental --

7 fundamentally important for the proper conduct of the proceedings, namely

8 that you are never expected to make an incorrect statement of material

9 fact or offer evidence which you know to be correct." And then you dealt

10 with the integrity of evidence.

11 And then: "Dealing with cross-examination, I expect both -- I

12 expect you, both the Prosecution and the Defence, again, to show the

13 utmost courtesy towards witnesses both in examination-in-chief as well

14 as -- as well as in cross-examination. You are, of course, free to

15 examine and cross-examine witnesses to the best of your ability and in the

16 way you deem fit and proper and also considering the attitude that each

17 witness takes in any particular moment. But dealing adequately with the

18 witness is one thing; failing to show courtesy or resorting to practices

19 which will not be acceptable to this Tribunal, such as undue

20 aggressiveness towards the witness, will not be allowed."

21 Now, Your Honour, the witness who was here for the last two weeks

22 was in fact a victim as well as someone who was giving evidence of his

23 investigations. And Your Honour, he's someone, we would submit, who by

24 virtue of his position is someone particularly in Bosnia who's in the

25 public eye. And such a person will suffer more than the ordinary

1 person -- although, of course, it's -- it's not to decry or lessen the

2 effect allegations of misconduct will have on the ordinary witness, but

3 it's far more serious, we would submit, when those allegations are made

4 against someone in his position, because obviously very much the situation

5 will apply that there's no smoke without fire. And so Your Honour, our

6 submission is -- and that's why I'm raising it, because there are a number

7 of witnesses who Your Honours are going to hear from who do hold positions

8 of responsibility and in the public eye in Bosnia who are to come -- that

9 care should be taken before making allegations.

10 Now, Your Honour, I can just summarise the effect of the evidence

11 that Judge Draganovic gave. He gave evidence of fact, the build-up of

12 the -- to the events in -- leading up to the takeover in Sanski Most; his

13 arrest and subsequent incarceration in the police station, the SUP, and

14 Manjaca, and what happened to him; and then his subsequent investigations,

15 the exhumations, the discovery of documents, and his collaboration with

16 the Bosnian government agency known as AID. And that was in connection

17 with the submission of documents to this Tribunal.

18 Now, Your Honour, it's absolutely right that from the beginning of

19 this case the Defence have made it clear that they challenge the

20 authenticity of documents which have not been stamped or signed.

21 Mr. Ackerman on the 4th of February, at page 1385 of the transcript, went

22 a little further, saying that he was -- his words were: "We are concerned

23 about the source of some of the documents, even though there's an

24 identified source, because we are not convinced that the source is

25 reliable. For example, for a source which is adversarial to our clients."

1 Now, Your Honour, in respect of Sanski Most, we were given a list

2 by Madam Fauveau of documents to which objection was taken. But obviously

3 because of Your Honours' ruling, just so that it was noted, I do not

4 recall being given any such list by Mr. Ackerman but I may be wrong about

5 that.

6 Now, Your Honour, I make it absolutely clear: The Prosecution

7 fully understands, appreciates, and shoulders its burden which is to

8 satisfy Your Honours that documents which have been admitted into evidence

9 are reliable. But equally, Your Honour, we would expect that Defence

10 counsel, particularly in the interests of a speedier trial for the accused

11 would indicate which documents outside those that are obvious - no stamp,

12 no signature - are seriously contested or alleged to be forgeries.

13 Your Honour, in respect of General Talic, we have no complaints

14 about the cross-examination at all. It was effectively a testing of the

15 evidence in respect of Manjaca. There was questioning about the map, you

16 will recall, Bosanski Brod, and the routes that were taken. And Your

17 Honour -- but the way -- the form of the questioning, we submit, was a

18 proper one, because it wasn't an assertion -- because they couldn't make

19 that assertion because they had no evidence that these were forgeries --

20 but the question was put: "Would you allow for the possibility that the

21 map was not made by members of the 6th Brigade?" So the issue is clear.

22 And we understand that we have to show Your Honours that this map is

23 authentic. The same with Rasula's diary, in respect -- which affects

24 General Talic directly because of the record of the meeting. It was -- he

25 was -- the witness was cross-examined on the basis that some of the words

1 were in Latin script, and the question was properly put: "Would you

2 accept that someone might have been able to add some words to that diary

3 before it was found," and so on and so forth.

4 Your Honour, the questioning when it came on behalf of

5 Mr. Brdjanin was very different. Your Honour, the matters began with an

6 attempt to enter into evidence a transcript of evidence in another case

7 relating to the statement of a witness not before the Court. And Your

8 Honours haven't, in fact, ruled upon that, but Your Honours have heard the

9 objection.

10 Your Honour, then a series of names were put to the judge. And

11 this is at page 5912 of the transcript. When Mr. Ackerman was invited

12 by me -- and Your Honours accepted the invitation -- to explain that list

13 of names, the explanation he gave, in the absence of the witness but in

14 open court -- and I emphasise that -- was apparently that that list of

15 names were a list of people who worked for AID, one of whom was the

16 ex-head of AID. The allegation made -- and Your Honour, I think it maybe

17 as well if I -- if I just remind Your Honour of what was actually said.

18 Your Honour -- I'm sorry. Again, this is page 5915. "Your Honour, I

19 can tell you only my current understanding, and I can also tell you this

20 matter is -- continues to be under investigation. But it is clear that

21 five individuals have been arrested and are sitting in jail in Sarajevo,

22 having been detained on the orders of Judge Putica. They are described

23 as five former officials of AID and their associates. They are charged

24 by the government of Bosnia-Herzegovina with engaging in terrorist

25 activities with manufacturing documents. It's a very, very serious

1 matter. There is an article about it in Oslobodenje, and I've -- and I

2 have an investigation going on trying to find out more about it. They

3 apparently also were engaged in some kind of a plot to assassinate Fikret

4 Abdic."

5 Now, Your Honour, first of all, the implication that the Trial

6 Chamber must be being asked to draw is that the -- these officials of

7 AID -- and taking it a step further -- AID generally were involved in

8 forgery of documents and that because in the investigative capacity as a

9 judge, the witness collaborated with AID, therefore he is in some way

10 tainted or less likely to be believed. Now, Your Honour, the submission

11 we make is this, that if allegations about a government agency are to be

12 made in this forum, counsel surely have a duty to make all possible checks

13 and make sure that the information is accurate. Now, Your Honour, as a

14 result of it being raised, we are in the process of making full inquiries

15 as to what the situation is. And -- yes, I'm quite -- I'm grateful. I

16 read out -- this is the way it's come out in the transcript. It's

17 absolutely right. Mr. Ackerman said, "Slobodna Bosna." I was quite

18 surprised when I saw the words "Oslobodjenje." But Your Honour, we're

19 making -- and if necessary, we can and will put evidence before the Court

20 about what is involved. But Your Honour, it's important in our submission

21 to give the Trial Chamber at least what we understand to be the accurate

22 account at the moment of what this concerns. Your Honour, it -- indeed

23 one of the many inquiries that could have been made was to contact the

24 newspaper itself and perhaps speak to the editor.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Let me interrupt you for one moment, Ms. Korner.

1 Madam Registrar, we have a witness awaiting outside presumably in

2 a room. Make sure that he is looked after and that someone explains to

3 him why he is being kept there and not giving evidence here. Could you

4 make -- take the necessary next steps, please.

5 Sorry, Ms. Korner. But --

6 MS. KORNER: Your Honour is quite right.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: I want to make sure that this gentleman is -- knows

8 that there's nothing happening that relates to him or that he should be

9 worrying about or that we are just being oblivious of his presence here.

10 Yes.

11 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm grateful for that.

12 Your Honour, our understanding from the checks that we were able

13 to make over the Friday and the weekend is as follows, that as listed in

14 this newspaper, the ex-head of AID has been arrested with four other

15 people. The charges apparently relate to operations allegedly - and I

16 emphasise this because all of this at the moment is mere charges - carried

17 out against the gentlemen Fikret Abdic that Mr. Ackerman explained to you

18 who he was, in the period 1995 to 1996. The charges in relation to

19 forgery is levelled exclusively against the ex-head, Mr. Alispahic, and it

20 relates to identification papers given to persons who had attended some

21 kind of military training camp. It's called camp Pogorelica again in 1995

22 to 1996.

23 Now, Your Honour, it may well be that at some stage by calling

24 proper evidence the Defence may wish to persuade Your Honours that these

25 events do cast out upon the authenticity of the documents that have been

1 supplied by AID. Your Honour, one of the many tasks that we are going to

2 be undertaking is to show that the content of those documents can be

3 supported by evidence, in other words, by witnesses. But Your Honour, our

4 submission is the manner in which that was introduced last Thursday is in

5 fact improper. Your Honour, there is no link that the Defence are able to

6 demonstrate or could at the time that they put these questions with this

7 witness. There's no evidence at all to show that he was in any way

8 connected with any of those events which are way outside the ambit of the

9 indictment.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Korner, if I'm not mistaken, having come --

11 having concluded that series of questions, Mr. Ackerman himself conceded

12 that and did not proceed any further. So I don't think it's the case of

13 hammering it in -- out because I think there is -- the triangle is

14 perfect.

15 MS. KORNER: No. Your Honour, our submission is it should never

16 have been dealt with in that way.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: How can you expect counsel to establish whether

18 there has been a contact or not or a connection or not without putting the

19 questions? At least whether he knew -- he knew these persons.

20 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, my -- the complaint that we make is he

21 could have been asked whether he knew these persons without there being

22 any description of why he was being asked that. That would have been the

23 proper way to do it.

24 JUDGE AGIUS: You brought up --

25 MR. ACKERMAN: She asked me to describe why I was asking it.

1 That's why there was a description. She asked for it.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

3 MR. ACKERMAN: And I said I'm going to do it in the presence of

4 the witness.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Ackerman I did not give you permission to stand

6 up.

7 MR. ACKERMAN: I'm sorry.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: I mean, we decided to ask the witness to leave the

9 courtroom and inquire what this was all about because you raised the

10 objection.

11 MS. KORNER: I know I did, Your Honour. But that doesn't allow

12 Mr. Ackerman -- Mr. Ackerman has no evidence to suggest there's any

13 connection. There is his description of the charges was in our submission

14 misleading because it led Your Honour to believe that there was some

15 connection with the documents in this case. And as far as we understand,

16 there's no connection.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: No. It did not lead the Chamber to believe that.

18 It made the suggestion --

19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour --

20 JUDGE AGIUS: Which could be as wide as you can imagine.

21 MS. KORNER: Absolutely. And Your Honour, that's our submission.

22 That is improper in the way this has been raised.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Not necessarily. Depends.

24 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I'm -- I see that Your Honour -- I'm

25 raising these matters now because they do concern us.

1 Your Honour, that's the first matter.

2 The witness was then accused of effectively being involved in the

3 theft of a roof in order to rebuild his own house. That's at page 5931.

4 Your Honour, then this exceedingly curious allegation that on one of the

5 three statements taken from potential witnesses, his signature had been

6 forged -- not that he forged it, but that his signature had been forged.

7 And the way it was put, Your Honour -- and this again is the complaint

8 that I make about this -- is the manner in which allegations are put.

9 Your Honour, he was asked to look at the three signatures in blown-up

10 form. And it was put at page 6009. "Now, sir, there are three

11 different signatures there, all of which you have told us are yours.

12 Which of those are not yours?" "All three are my signature." And then we

13 heard handwriting evidence from Mr. Ackerman? "Look at the one on the

14 bottom, sir. You don't make an L like that, an L at the end of Adil. And

15 you don't make a C like that at the end of Draganovic. That is clearly

16 written by someone else, isn't it?"

17 Now, Your Honour, is it my understanding of the rule is that is

18 why you have expert handwriting evidence because counsel are not experts

19 in handwriting. The assertion was made in that form that there was no

20 doubt -- because counsel believed it to be so -- that those were forged

21 signatures.

22 Mr. Ackerman later told Your Honour that he had no evidence in his

23 possession at all to suggest that one of those signatures was not the

24 judge's, other than his own supposition. Your Honour -- and I ask to what

25 issue does that form of cross-examination go? Your Honour indeed yourself

1 said at the end that you didn't understand to what issue it went. Your

2 Honour, it is not suggested that he forged his own signature or forged

3 someone else's signature, and it's not clear whether it's suggested that

4 forgery was done with or without his own knowledge.

5 Your Honour, finally, we have the lengthy trawl through the

6 documents relating to the witness's civil suit against Rasula and others.

7 On the basis that it was put to him -- I'm not sure on what possible basis

8 evidentially -- but if the Chamber were to find that he was telling the

9 truth about Mahala, that would help him in a civil suit; that throughout

10 his testimony he had gratuitously volunteered that there had been no

11 resistance in Mahala. Your Honours, we did a check over the transcript

12 over the weekend, and it's right to say there were precisely three

13 references, each time in respect of actual questions, either by myself or

14 Mr. Ackerman. And then, Your Honour, in cross -- and then the basis for

15 suggesting this was then dealt with at page 6028 of the transcript. Your

16 Honour, we were dealt when I asked for an explanation for this: "In

17 the face of this evidence to the contrary and throughout the testimony,

18 even when not asked, this judge has gratuitously thrown in that there was

19 no fighting in Mahala, that nobody was armed and nobody had weapons." And

20 Your Honour: "A finding by this Tribunal that there was no fighting in

21 Mahala could be used by him" -- and I emphasise the following words -- "I

22 think" -- in his lawsuit...

23 Now, Your Honour, it is the cardinal rule of all Bar Associations,

24 I imagine, in the world that what counsel thinks is irrelevant -- counsel

25 may think what he likes, but the question is, "Is there evidence or some

1 basis for making these suggestions?"

2 And Your Honour, then we dealt with the other allegations that

3 were made. And Mr. Ackerman said this in response to a question from

4 you. "Mr. Ackerman, are you suggesting that the witness -- are you

5 suggesting that the witness lied to the Trial Chamber when he said there

6 was no resistance, no fighting in Mahala?" I'm suggesting that it's

7 highly probable that he did, because of the lawsuit that he has. It's

8 worth 100.000 Deutschemarks to him. That's what I'm suggesting." Your

9 Honours said: "In my mind, it's all tied up." And he said: "I don't

10 know that he lied. I wasn't there. But I'm suggesting that it's highly

11 probable that I did. I'm also suggesting that it's highly probable that

12 one of those signatures that we saw today is not his. Just looking at it,

13 anyone would conclude that one of those signatures can't be his, because

14 it's written very different. It's a completely different handwriting.

15 Now, whether I'm right about that or not, it's going to depend, I suppose,

16 on a handwriting expert looking at it and giving us an opinion." Your

17 Honour, in our submission, that should have been done first, not the

18 allegation put in the way it was. Your Honour, the allegation could have

19 been put, "Are you sure that you signed all those three signatures?" And

20 thereafter, he could have been asked to provide samples.

21 Mr. Ackerman then went on: "Whether that turns out -- if my

22 suspicion about that is correct or not, I don't know. But I'm not a

23 handwriting expert" - quite - "so I can't make that conclusion." And

24 then finally Your Honour asked: "Are you suggesting that as regards to

25 proceedings in Sanski Most or whatever, where the judge Edina was

1 presiding, he manipulated the situation? Are you making that

2 suggestion?" "I have no basis upon which to make that, but I think it's

3 highly probable." And then he gave Your Honour an explanation about no

4 country in the world.

5 Now, Your Honour, it is -- and I return to what I said in the

6 beginning. Your Honour, it is incumbent in this trial even more than in

7 any other ordinary trial for counsel, as I say, to behave with propriety

8 and to make suggestions of a scandalous nature as these were in respect to

9 this man with some care before making them. Your Honour, of course

10 Defence counsel have a duty to represent their clients to the best of

11 their ability and to put matters which are helpful to their client's case,

12 but Your Honour they equally do have a duty in our submission -- and

13 it applies to the Prosecution as much as the Defence when we get to the

14 Defence case -- to act responsibly and to act with care before making such

15 allegations. And Your Honour, we really do say that it's not for the

16 Prosecution to protect its own witnesses or the witnesses it's called.

17 Your Honours are there presiding. Your Honours, we would submit

18 respectfully, do have a duty to stop and prevent cross-examination which

19 goes, we submit, beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. And Your Honour

20 the way that those matters were put to Judge Draganovic last week, we

21 submit, was an improper way of cross-examining.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you, Ms. Korner. I can assure you that the

23 Chamber did take into consideration most of what you have stated, while

24 Mr. Ackerman was conducting his cross-examination and that it gave due

25 weight to these considerations when it decided not to stop Mr. Ackerman

1 from putting and continuing with the questions he was putting at the

2 time. And as an ex-Defence counsel, I would tell you straight away -- and

3 I'm sure that you have that experience as well -- that the way the Defence

4 counsel conducts his cross-examination is his own business and he is bound

5 to stop -- he has a responsibility stop to stop when he is asked to stop.

6 Yes, Mr. Ackerman.

7 MR. ACKERMAN: Well, Your Honour, I -- I would prefer not to use

8 up a bunch of time to respond to anything that the Chamber is not

9 interested in hearing my response to. So if there are matters that you

10 want me to respond to, I'd be happy to.

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Not particularly, Mr. Ackerman. Not particularly.

12 I can assure everyone present here and everyone who is not present here

13 that last Friday's sitting was a difficult sitting, not just for Mr. --

14 for Judge Draganovic. It was a much more difficult sitting for us three

15 sitting here, because we had to make assessments as the situation

16 enveloped and -- we had to take some serious decisions. But the situation

17 is that it was the -- the decision that we took was the decision which was

18 the right one. Given the circumstances.

19 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I can't -- I can't say any more. I've

20 made the position quite clear, and if Your Honour takes that view --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. But Ms. Korner, I can assure you that had you

22 been sitting in my place last Friday, you would have probably come to the

23 same conclusion as we did.

24 MS. KORNER: Well, Your Honour, I don't think it's right for me to

25 speculate on what I would have done. I merely put the position --

1 JUDGE AGIUS: No. I am speculating, not you.

2 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, I should say -- and that's the -- I

3 meant to say that. But also, I think, and I reflected on it afterwards, I

4 think that perhaps the propriety that I'm complaining about equally

5 applies to the criticism that could have been made to some of the remarks

6 that I made. And if I may, I wish to apologise to the Chamber for the --

7 JUDGE AGIUS: It's not necessary, Ms. Korner. But what I do want

8 to make clear, that any witness that comes to give evidence here will be

9 treated like every other witness. And the higher the position that

10 witness occupies, the more careful you have to be in bringing him forward

11 and he has to be in -- or she has to be in providing the answers,

12 particularly if it's a witness who has never heard of the saying that

13 people who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones. I can assure

14 you that a judge, politician, a lawyer, a Dr. -- you only make one mistake

15 in your life, one mistake, and it can haunt you all -- throughout the rest

16 of your life. And if that mistake is known, it will be thrown at you the

17 moment you sit down there.

18 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, as I think Your Honours --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Irrespective of whether it is a mistake or not. But

20 it's a question of -- the moment you decide to accept to come forward as a

21 witness, you have to be prepared to answer all the questions that are put

22 to you, that are allowed by the Chamber.

23 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, it seems to me that there's one

24 overriding principle, and that is, the matters about which the questioning

25 is allowed relevant to the matters about which he has given evidence. And

1 the lovely catchall phrase that it goes to the credibility of the witness,

2 it's only relevant that the witness's credibility -- if the evidence he's

3 given is in some way disputed.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: That's --

5 MS. KORNER: And Your Honour can I say this just in relation to

6 Mahala. Your Honour, there is ample evidence available undoubtedly to the

7 Prosecution about what actually happened from people who were there. Your

8 Honours are going to be hearing from other people who were present when

9 the attack on Mahala took place. So it's then for Your Honour to judge,

10 having heard that evidence, whether the --

11 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, of course.

12 MS. KORNER: -- The suggestions made -- and that's what I mean,

13 Your Honour. The suggestions were all dressed up on the basis that Your

14 Honours would treat his evidence about Mahala differently having heard all

15 the other matters that were put. Well, Your Honours are going to hear

16 that.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Well, I can assure you, Ms. Korner that, we keep our

18 eyes wide open. You will never catch us asleep for just one single

19 minute. And with regard to the Mahala incident, I can assure you that I

20 had gone through the documentation that Mr. Ackerman had sought to bring

21 in evidence regarding -- to the original motion that Judge Draganovic

22 filed in the Sanski Most court, in which he makes a clear allegation as to

23 what were the circumstances when -- during which his house was burnt down

24 or destroyed. And again, that's something that you don't know, because

25 you wouldn't know what -- what we know. But that's something that we take

1 into consideration the moment we allow the question. Now, whether we

2 believe Mr. Ackerman or whether -- believe Mr. Ackerman -- give weight to

3 Mr. Ackerman's allegation or to the witness of Judge Draganovic, that's

4 another -- that's another question. You will only know that when we come

5 to the final judgement, if we need to spell that out. But until -- until

6 then, just -- the situation is that fortunately we come prepared. None of

7 us three comes here not knowing exactly what the witness has stated

8 beforehand or what is contained in the documents that are brought forward.

9 It's unfortunate that sometimes documents come at the last minute and we

10 don't have that much time to read them before they are put to the witness,

11 but we don't read them before; we read them immediately after or during

12 the break. So I can assure you, Ms. Korner, that it -- last Friday's

13 silent decisions --

14 MS. KORNER: Thursday.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Thursday. Sorry. Last Thursday's silent decisions

16 that we were making and taking from time to time were suffered decisions,

17 but we needed to take those decisions as taken.

18 MS. KORNER: Well, there's nothing more I can say, Your Honour.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

20 And Mr. Ackerman, I don't think you need to explain anything. I

21 mean, it's -- if at any time the Chamber believed that you were

22 overstepping what anyone of us three would have done in your place, given

23 the information, we would have stopped you, as we will in future when you

24 overstep.

25 MR. ACKERMAN: I expect you will, Your Honour.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Can we bring in the witness. I understand, Mr.

2 Cayley, you are taking over now.

3 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you. Ms. Korner --

5 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Mr. President.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Madam Fauveau.

7 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I understood this morning

8 that there was a witness statement that was not disclosed to me.

9 Apparently it was sent to my office in Paris with an explanation that it

10 would be put in my mail box here in the Tribunal. So it was never put

11 there, and actually I saw it five minutes before the beginning of this

12 morning's business. And my assistant left yesterday to look for it in

13 Paris. Therefore, I will need at least a half an hour to consult with my

14 client regarding that statement.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Is this -- are we -- may I ask you, Madam Fauveau,

16 whether you are referring to the statement that we found on our desk this

17 morning as well by the witness, dated 23rd May 2002?

18 Mr. Cayley.

19 MR. CAYLEY: Your Honour, it's -- I think it's apparent from the

20 statements, the corrected statements, the witness went through his

21 original statement. It's a page.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

23 MR. CAYLEY: Where he's gone through the original statement he

24 made and said there are some mistakes.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I have a practical solution. We will break

1 now rather than in a quarter of an hour's time. We will have the usual

2 break of 30 minutes, during which time I suppose you will have enough time

3 to read this extra page and also make consultations with your client if

4 needs be.

5 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Mr. President.

6 That is a solution that would suit me very much. But I would like to draw

7 the attention of the Prosecution to communicate documents to me here in

8 The Hague, because that is where I am.

9 MR. CAYLEY: My apologies. I'm sorry.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Ms. Korner, that applies to you as well, to make

11 sure --

12 MS. KORNER: It what does, Your Honour?

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Madam Fauveau's -- Madam Fauveau's request that in

14 future all documents be forwarded to her in her office here and not in

15 Paris.

16 MS. KORNER: Your Honour, we act as one on the Prosecution. So I

17 take it that when the Prosecution is mentioned, that applies to me,

18 Mr. Cayley, and anybody else on the team.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly. No. But I knew that you did not have

20 the phones and I didn't know whether you were following or not.

21 MS. KORNER: Thank you.

22 JUDGE AGIUS: So 30 minutes. We will resume at quarter to 11.00.

23 --- Recess taken at 10.13 a.m.

24 --- On resuming at 10.49 a.m.

25 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour. Just for the purposes of the

1 regard, Ms. Korner is no longer in the courtroom. And they're proceeding

2 to get the witness.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. The usher?

4 MR. CAYLEY: Yes. I suppose he has already gone to bring in the

5 witness.

6 MR. CAYLEY: Yes, Your Honour.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: In the meantime, General Talic, during the break,

8 have you been contacted or did you try to contact anyone with regard to

9 the appointment and nomination of the lead counsel?

10 I suppose I see Ms. -- Madam Fauveau on her feet. Yes.

11 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Yes, Mr. President. I

12 contacted Mr. Rhodes [As interpreted] immediately, and he told me that

13 there would be no problem. So I have a meeting with Mr. Rhodes [As

14 interpreted] this afternoon after the hearing, and I shall try to contact

15 Mr. Zecevic immediately too, unless Mr. Rhodes [As interpreted] does that

16 before me.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay. I think that's satisfactory.

18 However, if at any time you see that you are being neglected or

19 you're not being given all due attention, please do bring that to our

20 attention immediately.

21 THE ACCUSED TALIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours. It's

22 quite clear to me now.

23 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, just for --

24 Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Ackerman.

25 MR. ACKERMAN: Go ahead.

1 MR. CAYLEY: For the purposes of planning, this witness will go

2 into tomorrow. I don't think he's going to be as lengthy as Draganovic.

3 Simply -- I don't -- I don't want to sort of repeat much of the evidence

4 that's been given. But he certainly will go into tomorrow. And I've

5 allowed a day for cross-examination, although of course if it goes on

6 longer than that, that's a matter for the Defence.

7 The next witness available to testify will be on Thursday.

8 JUDGE AGIUS: The witness, please.

9 Yes, Mr. Ackerman.

10 MR. ACKERMAN: I was just going to point out that the transcript

11 discloses that Ms. Fauveau talked with Mr. Rhodes. And I think she said

12 Mr. Rohde, who is the person that I'm sure she talked to.

13 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

14 [The witness entered court]

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Good morning, sir.

16 THE WITNESS: [No interpretation]

17 JUDGE AGIUS: And welcome to this Tribunal.

18 According to the Rules, before you start giving evidence, you are

19 required to make a solemn declaration to tell us the truth, the whole

20 truth, and nothing but the truth. The usher will hand you the document

21 which contain this statement which you are kindly asked to read out aloud.

22 Thank you.

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I solemnly declare that I will speak

24 the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

25 WITNESS: MIRZET KARABEG

1 [Witness answered through interpreter]

2 JUDGE AGIUS: I thank you, sir. You may sit down.

3 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: I notice that you are a lawyer by profession, and

5 therefore that spurs me having to explain the set-up in this Tribunal.

6 As you can figure out, we are the three Judges dealing with this

7 case. To your right, the gentleman standing and who will commence the

8 examination-in-chief very shortly is the Prosecutor. And to your left,

9 you see two rows. In the front row, you have the Defence team for

10 Radoslav Brdjanin, and in the back row you have the Defence team

11 representing General Momir Talic. Later on you will have a more direct

12 encounter with the gentleman and the lady in these two rows when they

13 proceed with -- when they come to the cross-examination. But for the time

14 being, you are going to be asked questions by the Prosecution in chief.

15 Thank you.

16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.

17 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

18 Examined by Mr. Cayley:

19 Q. Witness, your name is Mirzet Karabeg; is that correct?

20 A. Yes, it is.

21 Q. And you were born on the 20th of December, 1943 in Sanski Most; is

22 that correct?

23 A. Yes, correct.

24 Q. And you are of Bosniak nationality; correct?

25 A. Yes, I am.

1 Q. And you are of Islamic or Muslim faith; is that correct?

2 A. Yes, it is. Correct.

3 Q. Now, the Judge has already stated to you that the Court knows that

4 you are a lawyer by profession. Am I right in saying that you studied law

5 in Zagreb and Sarajevo and completed your legal studies in Sarajevo?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. You practiced law, I think, from 1975 to 1982; correct?

8 A. Yes. In the administrative bodies.

9 Q. And I think from 1982 you were the head of personnel or human

10 resources at the Famos factory in Sanski Most; is that correct?

11 A. Yes, correct. The Famos factory.

12 Q. Let's move straight to 1990. And if you can think about that

13 year. You were a candidate for the SDA party in Sanski Most in the year

14 1990; is that right?

15 A. It is. Correct.

16 Q. And I think after the 1990 elections, you were appointed as the

17 president of the executive board of Sanski Most. Is that right?

18 A. Municipality of Sanski Most. That's right.

19 Q. And you held that position from the 1st of January of 1991 until

20 the 17th of April of 1992; is that right?

21 A. Correct.

22 Q. Now, the president of the executive board of the municipality, is

23 that the second most important political position within the

24 municipality?

25 A. That is correct.

1 Q. What is the foremost position in the municipal government?

2 A. The president of the municipality -- excuse me. In the

3 government. President of the government -- the president of the executive

4 board.

5 Q. Now, the president of the executive board is in effect the head of

6 the executive branch of the local government, is it not?

7 A. Yes. Yes, of the executive branch of the local authorities.

8 Q. And the other position that you mentioned, the president of the

9 municipality -- the president of the municipal assembly is the head of the

10 legislature. Is that broadly correct?

11 A. It is. Yes, it is.

12 Q. What was your function as the president of the executive board in

13 relation to the president of the assembly?

14 A. Well, the implementation, execution of the decisions and other

15 acts and what had been agreed upon on the level of the municipality of

16 Sanski Most.

17 Q. So it was your function to implement the decisions that were

18 decided upon in the municipal assembly; is that right?

19 A. Yes, it is.

20 Q. Now, before we get to the meat of your testimony, I want to move

21 forward in time. You left the municipality of Sanski Most in August of

22 1992; is that right?

23 A. Yes. It was on the 28th of August, 1992.

24 Q. And after that departure, you spent some time in the Manjaca

25 camp.

1 A. Yes, I did.

2 Q. And we'll deal with that later in your testimony.

3 After you left the Manjaca camp, where did you go after that?

4 A. After leaving the Manjaca camp, I was exchanged and I left for

5 Travnik.

6 Q. And in 1992/1993, Travnik was in Bosnian government-controlled

7 territory; correct?

8 A. Yes, it is.

9 Q. What did you do in Travnik after you arrived there?

10 A. After arriving to Travnik, we set up the presidency of the Crisis

11 Staff for Sanski Most in exile, and then we set it up in Travnik.

12 Q. Could you tell the Judges a little bit about your post-war

13 political career. So after 1995 and your return to Sanski Most. Could

14 you tell them about your political career.

15 A. After the liberation of Sanski Most, we -- it was important -- the

16 War Presidency of Sanski Most was appointed by the government of Bosnia

17 and Herzegovina. On the 13th of March, 1996, the temporary -- the interim

18 assembly was set up of the deputies elected in 1992 and which was active

19 up to the first elections held in the post-war period in Bosnia and

20 Herzegovina. After that from November 1996 I was elected in the cantonal

21 government of Una and Sana for -- as a justice minister and minister for

22 administrative and governmental issues. After a two-year term and its

23 expiry, I was elected for -- a cantonal minister for social issues, for

24 refugees, and displaced persons and -- which I occupied till 1999, after

25 which the term expired. From the 1st of January 2000, I opened my office

1 as a lawyer. And this is what I have been active in since then till the

2 present day.

3 Q. Thank you, Mr. Karabeg. If we can now go back to January of 1991.

4 The municipal assembly in Sanski Most, I'm right in saying, was split

5 between the SDS, the SDA, and the HDZ; is that right?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. And I think the -- please continue.

8 A. And there were deputies from -- SDP from the Reform forces, the

9 so-called block of the left forces.

10 Q. No one party had an absolute majority, did they, in the municipal

11 assembly?

12 A. No, they had not.

13 Q. I think I'm right in saying the SDS had 23 seats, the SDA 22

14 seats, the HDZ 4 seats, and the other parties you referred to had 11

15 seats. Does that sound about right to you?

16 A. Yes, 11 -- yes, that's correct.

17 JUDGE AGIUS: Mr. Cayley, is your witness still a member of the

18 House of Representatives in the Federal parliament in Sarajevo?

19 MR. CAYLEY: I think not, Your Honour. He's a lawyer in private

20 practice. But we can ask him.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. Are you still a member of the House of

22 Representatives in Sarajevo?

23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] No. I was for two -- for two terms

24 I was in the parliament, in the House of Representatives. But I'm not any

25 more.

1 JUDGE AGIUS: Thank you.

2 MR. CAYLEY:

3 Q. In 1991, who was the president of the municipal assembly in Sanski

4 Most?

5 A. Nedeljko Rasula.

6 Q. And he was a member of the SDS party; correct?

7 A. Yes, correct.

8 Q. Now, very briefly, in the first few months after the 1990

9 elections, how did the political institutions function in Sanski Most?

10 A. Very well. We were happy. The Communist system was toppled, and

11 we cooperated in the most excellent manner.

12 Q. Now, since Mr. Rasula was the president of the assembly and you

13 were the president of the executive board, did you meet on a regular

14 basis?

15 A. Yes, we did. Every morning we'd begin working at 7.00 a.m., and

16 we would meet between 7.00 and 8.00, have coffee, and discuss the

17 activities of the day.

18 Q. During that time, how would you describe your relationship with

19 Mr. Rasula?

20 A. Correct. A correct relationship.

21 Q. Now, let's move forward in time. And if you can direct your mind

22 to March of 1991. Now, in March of 1991, you attended a meeting in Banja

23 Luka as the president of the executive board of Sanski Most. Do you

24 recall that meeting?

25 A. I do remember it.

1 Q. Could you describe to the Judges why that meeting was convened,

2 who was there, and what was said.

3 A. Well, in Banja Luka in the conference room of the Banja Luka

4 municipality building, the president of the municipality and the

5 presidents of the executive boards of 17 Krajina municipalities were

6 invited to attend. The composition was on the basis of the elections in

7 90 per cent of the municipalities you had 90 per cent of representatives

8 of the Serbian nation, both in the legislative and the executive branches.

9 I came to that meeting. I found the invitation waiting for me on the

10 table. I went and I met a friend, also a Bosniak, Asim Medaric [phoen],

11 who was the head of the -- the president of the executive board of the

12 municipality of Kljuc. At the meeting what was put forward -- the

13 question was raised, what do balijas and Ustashas want? That was the

14 jargon being used. Many other things were also said. During the break,

15 the two of us commented. We said, "My goodness. How did we end up here?"

16 And we were stunned to hear this being said at that meeting.

17 Q. Now, Mr. Karabeg, just to clarify. You said "during the break,

18 the two of us commented 'my goodness, how did we end up here'?" Who were

19 you referring to? Your Honours and who else?

20 A. Asim Medaric, who was the president of the executive board of

21 the municipality of Kljuc. That is the person I'm referring to.

22 Q. Now, just from your recollection how many Bosniak Muslims were

23 present at this meeting?

24 A. Only the two of us.

25 Q. And the other delegates that were present were Serbs; is that

1 right?

2 A. Yes, indeed. The other -- I would have known the other Bosniaks,

3 namely Muhamed Cehajic -- the late Muhamed Cehajic, who was the president

4 of the municipality of Prijedor at the time. But a few days later I asked

5 him why he -- didn't he attend that meeting, and he answered that he

6 didn't receive the invitation.

7 Q. Now, you've said in your evidence that at the meeting, what was

8 put forward -- the question was raised what to do with the balijas and

9 Ustashas want. That was the jargon being used. Can you remember now

10 after all these years anything specific that was said about the balijas

11 and the Ustashas at this meeting?

12 A. Well, they -- it was said that the numbers of balijas and Ustashas

13 should be reduced. That means should be assured for the Serbian

14 Krajina -- later the region -- later the Republika Srpska, that

15 there -- many media of the balija and the Ustasha -- this referred to the

16 Bosniak and Croatian televisions; and that all means should be used in

17 order to prevent it from these media being seen and heard on this

18 territory.

19 Q. Now, after hearing these comments -- actually, the first question

20 I have for you is: Do you recall who said this? If you don't, simply say

21 you can't remember. But do you recall who made these comments about

22 balijas and Ustasha?

23 A. I do not recall any of the names.

24 Q. Having --

25 A. Neither did I know these names at the time, because the people who

1 were intervening did not introduce themselves. But as I have mentioned,

2 it was a meeting of the presidents of the municipalities and of the

3 executive boards of the 17 municipalities of the Bosnian Krajina of the

4 Banja Luka region.

5 Q. Now, you've already stated that you spoke with your Bosniak

6 colleague about what had been stated. Did you address any of your

7 concerns about what you'd heard to any of the Serb delegates that were at

8 that meeting?

9 A. And how. We had the break. We had breakfast there, had kebab,

10 and then we returned in order to hear what was being discussed there.

11 Q. Specifically what I'm asking you is whether or not you addressed

12 any of your concerns about what you'd heard to any of the Serb delegates.

13 If the answer to that question is no, can you state why you didn't address

14 any of your concerns.

15 A. At the meeting itself?

16 Q. Yes.

17 A. Well, it would have no purpose. Maybe they would laugh at this

18 concern of mine.

19 Q. Did you stay for the whole meeting?

20 A. Yes, I did.

21 Q. And do you recall approximately when it ended?

22 A. That meeting ended approximately -- it could have ended at about

23 2.00 p.m. It began at 11.00, and then there was a break.

24 Q. And then at 2.00, am I right in saying you returned to Sanski

25 Most?

1 A. Yes, that's right. Immediately.

2 Q. Was Mr. Rasula at that meeting in Banja Luka?

3 A. No, he was not.

4 Q. Let's now move ahead in time to late March, into April of 1991.

5 And I want you to try and recall the military exercises that you remember

6 taking place in Sanski Most and Kljuc during that time. Do you recall

7 that period of time?

8 A. I do recall the time. I remember those exercises. I know that it

9 took -- these took place in 1991. But I'm not sure, but I believe that

10 these exercises began when the war broke out in Croatia. I am not sure,

11 but I believe it was so.

12 Q. Now, these particular military exercises. You were the president

13 of the executive board of the municipality at that time. Do you know why

14 these military exercises were carried out in the municipality of Sanski

15 Most?

16 A. Let me put it this way: These exercises -- such exercises were

17 organised also earlier in time. I worked in the past in a body where such

18 exercises were organised. I remember it could have been in 1982.

19 Q. But addressing this particular exercise in 1991, do you know why

20 this military exercise took place in March and April of 1991 in Sanski

21 Most?

22 A. Well, I do not claim that it was in the beginning of March or

23 April 1991. It was either -- or it could have been June or July. And

24 here I'm not sure.

25 Q. Can you --

1 A. It was in order to ensure and to verify the readiness of the

2 Territorial Defence.

3 Q. All right. You're not -- you're not sure of the month in which it

4 took place. And that's fine. It's a long time ago. Do you know who

5 carried out this military exercise? Who was running it in the

6 municipality?

7 A. This was organised by the Secretariat of Defence and the TO staff

8 of the municipality. These are the two municipal bodies.

9 Q. Who participated in this military exercise in Sanski Most?

10 A. It was under the patronage of the army. But the population

11 participated, primarily from the municipality of Sanski Most.

12 Q. And in your view, what was the significance of this military

13 exercise taking place during 1991 in Sanski Most?

14 A. These exercises were held for the broader region - Sanski Most,

15 Kljuc, Bosanski Petrovac, and Bosanski Krupa - that's the way it should

16 have been.

17 Q. Did you at the time think that there was anything unusual about

18 this military exercise taking place in 1991, since you've stated the last

19 one took place in 1982.

20 A. First I had my doubts about it. It was unusual because we had

21 this situation of war -- war situation on the territory of Yugoslavia, the

22 war in Slovenia, the war in Croatia. In the media, we -- via the

23 international media we could see that there was a war on the threshold of

24 Bosnia and Herzegovina also. And in contact with the representatives of

25 individual municipalities, Bosanski Krupa, the president of the

1 municipality, the president of the executive board. And they refused and

2 said they would not be participating in this exercise. Also, the area of

3 Bosanski Petrovac ought could have been involved. I don't know what

4 happened, but at the end it was only the area of Kljuc and Sanski Most.

5 Q. Let's move ahead to the summer -- the late summer of 1991 and the

6 series of explosions started to take place in Sanski Most. Do you recall

7 the start of those explosions?

8 A. First the explosions took place in two houses -- two homes of two

9 Croatian families. In the village of Kruhari, in proximity of Sanski

10 Most, in fact 2 kilometres from Sanski Most itself. These explosions

11 were -- happened once a month, then every 20 days. And as April and May

12 approached, they occurred every four or five days. And from the 20th of

13 May to the 25th of May was the period when explosions occurred at least

14 once a day, if not twice a day.

15 Q. Now, Mr. Karabeg, when you refer to April and May, you're

16 referring to April and May of 1992; is that correct?

17 A. Yes, 1992. That's it.

18 Q. Were Croatian families the only ethnic group that was targeted by

19 these explosions?

20 A. No. Croatian and Bosniak. Or to put it otherwise, all others,

21 all non-Serbs -- other non-Serbs.

22 Q. Now, I know again it's a long time ago. It's ten years ago. But

23 do you recall how many buildings were targeted by explosive devices during

24 this period from September of 1991 to May of 1992?

25 A. Forty-two buildings. There were individual buildings which were

1 targeted not once but twice. They were renewed, rebuilt, and after -- a

2 few months later they were targeted again.

3 Q. What types of buildings were targeted, if you can recall?

4 A. They were mostly private shops, cafes, boutiques, shops. And I

5 also mentioned those two houses, those two homes in Kruhari.

6 Q. Do you recall if any buildings belonging to Serbs were targeted

7 with explosive devices during this period?

8 A. I heard that -- that in a cafe called Pilot, that it was targeted

9 by an explosion. And it was owned by an inhabitant of Serbian ethnicity.

10 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown, please,

11 Prosecutor's Exhibit 104.

12 Q. Now, Witness, I want you to think ahead in time to February of

13 1992 and the time of the referendum on the independence of

14 Bosnia-Herzegovina. Now, the document in front of you is a proclamation

15 to the Serbian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Have you ever seen this

16 document before?

17 A. Yes, I have.

18 Q. Where --

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I see -- I recognise Madam Fauveau.

20 MS. FAUVEAU-IVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I should simply like to ask

21 whether the English version could be placed on the ELMO, because I

22 received this list this morning and I can't find that document.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sure it can. Thank you, Madam Fauveau.

24 MR. CAYLEY:

25 Q. Now, Witness, I asked you have you ever seen this document before,

1 and you stated that you had. Where have you seen this document before and

2 when?

3 A. They supplied all Serb citizens with this proclamation. True that

4 this was done in covert form, but we found it nevertheless and we were

5 aware of this proclamation.

6 Q. Did you find this document in Sanski Most?

7 A. Yes, we did.

8 Q. Now, did you ever speak with any Serbs in Sanski Most about the

9 referendum?

10 A. Yes, I did.

11 Q. And what did they tell you?

12 A. Well, let me put it this way. There were some of them who did

13 vote, though a small number of them.

14 Q. Did -- please continue.

15 A. There were some who said that they were subjected to pressure, and

16 there were others who supported this proclamation whole-heartedly. After

17 the referendum, then came the plebiscite of the Serb people, organised by

18 them.

19 Q. That plebiscite, I think, Witness, you're mistaken, was before

20 February of 1992. But nevertheless, I have a question for you on what

21 you've just stated. You say that some said they were subjected to

22 pressure. Can you tell the Judges what kind of pressure you were told

23 about and can you recall the names of any of those people that you spoke

24 to?

25 A. Well, you see, it was like this: There was pressure that if

1 they don't [As interpreted] take part in the referendum, a grenade would

2 be thrown in their apartment, their house, that they might be fired from

3 their jobs.

4 Q. You stated that if they don't take part in the referendum. I

5 think you meant to say if they do --

6 A. No. If they do. If they do take part in the referendum. That's

7 what I said.

8 Q. Did they identify to you who was exerting this pressure, what

9 individuals, what groups?

10 A. The SDS. People from the SDS party.

11 Q. Now, I know again it's a long time ago, but do you recall the

12 names of any of these Serbs that you spoke to?

13 A. Mirko Dobrijevic, Gugo Zugic, Vuko Lepic. I can't remember any

14 other names, but there were others too. But as I said, they were not

15 many.

16 Q. Thank you.

17 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown Prosecutor's

18 Exhibit 602.

19 Q. Witness, is this a document that you signed?

20 A. It is.

21 Q. Now, before we talk about the substance of this document, I want

22 to speak a little bit about the procedure, about the manner in which

23 documents such as this were signed and sealed. Now, am I right in saying

24 that in your capacity as the president of the executive board, you signed

25 a great many decisions and notes like this on behalf of the executive

1 board?

2 A. I did.

3 Q. Can you explain to the Judges the process that took place when you

4 as the president of the executive board signed one of these documents. So

5 once the document was typed, what happened to it after that?

6 A. You see, it was like this. This was an issue discussed at the

7 executive board, and it consisted of seven members - three Bosniaks, three

8 citizens of Serb ethnicity, and one Croat. We voted on this. There were

9 four votes in favour, and this document was drafted. As the president was

10 given by the secretary of the executive board -- that is, in other words,

11 my secretary -- this document for me to sign, which I read through and I

12 saw that it had been entered in the register, in the protocol, and then I

13 handed it back to the secretary to deal with it. And the procedure is

14 that such a document is then stamped, and one copy is kept in the file to

15 be put in the archives, and this one has -- bears my signature but no

16 stamp. So it is a trace. It is proof that this is for the archives or

17 the files.

18 Q. I think if you look very carefully, there is a -- there is a stamp

19 on this particular copy, although it's a very poor photocopy. But

20 nevertheless what you've said about the stamp, I want to follow up on

21 that. Are you stating that the copy of the document that went on to the

22 file was not stamped?

23 A. That is how it should be.

24 Q. How many copies were generally made? Ignore this document for the

25 moment. But generally speaking, from your recollection how many

1 documents -- how many copies of documents were made at any one time of

2 official decisions?

3 A. Well, usually -- I'm not saying that that is how it is prescribed.

4 But unless it is required by needs -- as you see on this document, there

5 are six addressees and the event is for the files. If not, then usually

6 the document is copied in three copies -- there are three copies of every

7 document.

8 Q. Now, the official copy, the copy that was transmitted to other

9 institutions or individuals, bore a stamp, did it not?

10 A. Yes. Yes.

11 Q. And that stamp gave the document its legitimacy, its legality; is

12 that right?

13 A. Yes. Let me just make a remark. As president of the executive

14 board, I never stamped documents. I see that it has been entered in the

15 protocol. I sign it. And the secretary does the rest of the procedure,

16 takes care of the rest. And the procedure is to stamp the document and to

17 forward it to whoever it is necessary. And then one copy is kept for the

18 files.

19 Q. And the file copy is the copy which in your experience did not

20 bear a stamp; correct?

21 A. No, no. That is how it should be.

22 Q. Yes. I'm sorry. You've answered in the negative to what I've

23 said. I just want to make it absolutely clear that the copy that was

24 entered in the file -- wait one moment, Witness. The copy that was

25 entered on the file did not actually have the stamp attached to it by the

1 secretary.

2 A. That's right. That is what I meant to say, that it is not

3 stamped. And that is the rule, that as such it goes into the files.

4 Q. Now, let's talk about the content of this particular document.

5 And it was one that was signed by you on the 5th of March of 1992. Do you

6 see that?

7 A. Yes. Yes.

8 Q. And the reason for this decision concern the means of taking over

9 the executive post in the Sanski Most branch of the public auditing

10 service. Do you see that?

11 A. I do.

12 Q. Now, you then state in paragraph 1: "The executive committee

13 condemns any recourse to violence or illegal conduct to seize power, and

14 similarly the use of force in the action carried out in the Sanski Most

15 branch of the SDK on 28 February, 1992."

16 Can you explain to the Judges what had taken place on the 28th of

17 February, 1992 in the SDK.

18 A. A forcible takeover of power by the SDS, together with its

19 representatives in the SOS, broke into the premises of the SDK, as we call

20 it, the payments service, and wanted by force to replace Mrs. Dobrija

21 Sanica [phoen] who headed that institution and who locked herself up in

22 the safe of the SDK. There was a great deal of commotion over it. There

23 were several hundred people there. And this was thwarted, this attempt.

24 On that very same day, I convened an extraordinary session of the

25 executive council. We had regular meetings. But when anything like this

1 occurred, we would convene an emergency meeting. And we tried to deal

2 with the problem in that way.

3 Q. Why did the SDS want to take over the public auditing service?

4 A. You see, the SDK is an institution for payments transactions. Up

5 to then -- and it was quite normal in those days -- being the capital of

6 the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, that is, Sarajevo -- so all the

7 resources coming from taxis were channelled to Sarajevo. And by taking

8 over the SDK and replacing the person in charge, those funds would no

9 longer go to Sarajevo but, rather, to Banja Luka.

10 Q. Was this takeover, this -- as you describe it in your order, your

11 decision -- this illegal conduct, was it ever resolved?

12 A. Well, let me put it this way: After the 6th or 7th of April, this

13 matter was resolved in the way they wanted it to be resolved. I will make

14 another observation. I think it was in March 1992 that three inspectors

15 of the crime department from Sanski Most personally carried money to the

16 army in Titova Korenica, and one of them got drunk, and the document which

17 said that he had handed over the money and that he signed was found. And

18 in April 1992, in one of the weekly newspapers of the Sarajevo press, this

19 receipt was published. In this -- that is how money was collected.

20 Actually, I don't know how it was collected, but this is what was done on

21 that occasion.

22 Q. When you found out that these three inspectors had carried money

23 to the army in Titova Korenica, did you make any inquiry into that matter,

24 as the president of the executive board?

25 A. Those were the people who were meant to carry out the

1 investigation, in the territory of Sanski Most. They were the people who

2 had been assigned the task of investigating the explosions that had

3 occurred in Sanski Most municipality.

4 Q. Let me ask the question of you again. And it may be that you

5 didn't make any inquiry, in which case simply say, "No, I didn't make any

6 inquiry." When you heard about this event --

7 A. No, I didn't. I didn't make any inquiry or investigation.

8 Q. And why was that?

9 A. I didn't carry out an investigation because they were the same

10 people who were -- who had been given these assignments. For instance,

11 this very document that is in front me, they were supposed to implement

12 this decision. And in those days I didn't know that they were doing that,

13 nor did I know that they were acting in that way.

14 Q. Were the times politically difficult for you to make inquiry into

15 this sort of event?

16 A. Indeed they were, yes. They were difficult times.

17 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit

18 603, please.

19 Q. Could you just read that document through for me.

20 A. "According to verified information --"

21 Q. Sorry. You don't need to read it out. If you could just read it

22 to yourself?

23 MR. CAYLEY: And if the witness could be shown also P757.2, which

24 is a map of Sanski Most municipality.

25 Q. Now, Witness, what I'm interested in, in this particular document

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

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

13 English transcripts.

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1 is on --

2 MR. CAYLEY: It's on line 7, Your Honours, of the English copy.

3 And I'll read it because it's probably not on the same line in yours.

4 Q. But it states: "About 500 armed civilians were noted at a meeting

5 -- at a recent meeting of Muslim citizens in the village of Donji

6 Kamengrad. Also present among them were members of the ZB, Green Berets,

7 who sought that everyone who was armed launch an attack on the Serbian

8 village of Suhace."

9 Now, on the 6th or 7th of March, I think you recall what this

10 event refers to -- what this report refers to. Can you explain to the

11 Judges what you remember happening on those days and what you think this

12 particular report is referring to.

13 A. Well, around about at that time two grenades were fired at the

14 mosque in Donji Kamengrad. Around 12.00 I was sleeping at home. The

15 phone rang, and I was called to go to Kamengrad, where a lot of people

16 had rallied, and I was told that two grenades had been fired at the mosque

17 in Donji Kamengrad, which had been inaugurated only a couple of months

18 prior to that. So it was a newly built mosque. I arrived there. There

19 were quite a lot of people. I think there may have been up to 1.000

20 people that were protesting. And the police was also present. The people

21 were expressing their indignation. And about an hour later, the people

22 dispersed and went home. The next day, the legal bodies investigated this

23 incident.

24 Q. Do you recall if there was any damage to the mosque in Donji

25 Kamengrad on that day as a result of these two mortar shells being fired?

1 A. No. The shells were fired into the yard of the mosque.

2 Q. Could you look at the map next to you and just point out to the

3 Judges the village of Donji Kamengrad.

4 Mr. Karabeg, you need to -- yes?

5 A. [Indicates]

6 Q. I see. It's indeed marked on the map as Donji Kamengrad.

7 Now, Witness, did you ever find out where the mortar shells that

8 were fired towards the mosque were fired from?

9 A. Yes, we did.

10 Q. Where were they fired from? Do you know?

11 A. They were fired from the direction of Suhace.

12 Q. While you were at this gathering, do you recall anybody in the

13 crowd stating that they wanted to launch an attack on the Serbian village

14 of Suhace?

15 A. No.

16 Q. How far is the village of Suhace from Donji Kamengrad

17 approximately?

18 A. The village of Suhace is about 2 kilometres away.

19 Q. Do you recall how it was known that the mortar shells had been

20 fired from Suhace? If you don't, simply say you don't know. But do you

21 recall where that information came from?

22 A. Well, you see, I said the next day the legal authorities

23 investigated the incident. The law enforcement bodies, that is,

24 representatives of the police and the prosecutor's office.

25 Q. And that was a conclusion that they reached, was it, that the

1 shells had been fired from Suhace, as far as you know?

2 A. Yes, by them. Yes.

3 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could now be shown Prosecutor's

4 Exhibit 604. And now we're moving ahead to late March of 1992.

5 Q. Could you tell the Judges first of all who was Redzo Kurbegovic.

6 A. Redzo Kurbegovic is president of the municipal board of the SDA in

7 Sanski Most. At least, that is what he was at the time.

8 Q. Now, if you could just read over this document to yourself. Have

9 you read it? Actually, you have two documents in front of you, which --

10 A. Yes, I have.

11 Q. The document that I'm interested in is the document of the 23rd of

12 March of 1992. Do you have that document in front of you?

13 A. No. I have a document dated the 12th of March, 1992.

14 MR. CAYLEY: This is -- is that Prosecutor's Exhibit 604?

15 Could I have a look at it for one moment.

16 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]

17 MR. CAYLEY: No. This is not the right document.

18 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated] It's not the right

19 document. I can see it from here.

20 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, Your Honour, please.

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Perhaps if we agree on what document we're talking

22 about, you could hand him your copy or Mr. Ackerman can hand his copy.

23 MR. CAYLEY: No. We have the right document.

24 Thank you, Mr. Ackerman.

25 Q. My apologies, Witness. If you could look that document over.

1 Now, on the 19th of March of 1992, what were you doing in

2 Sarajevo?

3 A. We were there on official business.

4 Q. Official government business of the municipality; correct? Or

5 party business?

6 A. It was an official trip on behalf of the municipality that I

7 represented.

8 Q. Now, do you know why you were stopped in this manner?

9 A. We didn't know at the time why we were stopped.

10 Q. And you were stopped, this document states, by a joint patrol of

11 the Mrkonjic Grad public security and the JNA. Do you remember at the

12 time being stopped by both the police and the army?

13 A. Yes. At the Rogolj [phoen] checkpoint, on the road from Mrkonjic

14 towards Kljuc.

15 Q. Were you given reasons at the time as to why you were searched and

16 taken away for interview?

17 A. No.

18 Q. Can you explain how you were maltreated and questioned at the

19 barracks in Mrkonjic Grad, as it states in this statement.

20 A. We were taken from that checkpoint, and we were accompanied by the

21 military. When we came to these barracks, we were taken to a room. We

22 were questioned, maltreated - not physically though - we were searched,

23 and all which we had on us was taken out and taken from us. Our pockets

24 had to be emptied and turned inside out. We were maltreated, thus for

25 about four and a half hours, and we were being told that the secretary of

1 the SDA had been arrested -- of Celinac, I believe. And on him papers

2 were found about the demolishing of bridges and other structures. After

3 signing our statement, I was particularly maltreated by one of these

4 officers, and he commented that my statement isn't proper, that it's too

5 short, that my signature isn't correct, and that he'd really like to show

6 him -- his own way what he thinks of me. Believe me that I tried to

7 contact -- to establish contact. I had the numbers of two colonels with

8 whom I had been in contact during those exercises. But I was not

9 allowed -- in fact, one of them said, "Who cares about the colonel and

10 you? You've got nothing to do with this." We noticed there were many

11 soldiers there wearing red berets. Then we also surmised that this would

12 be the barracks where the special forces are being trained and that they

13 were in fact present there. We were a bit afraid. After four and a half

14 hours of interrogation, there was nobody at the checkpoint so we thought

15 that maybe they were concealed somewhere or that there would be an ambush.

16 After that -- the next morning Mr. Redzo called and convened the municipal

17 board and issued this statement to the public.

18 Q. Now, the statement itself refers to an article from the AS

19 magazine in which a statement by Mr. Kurbegovic was published. What

20 statement, as far as you can recall, had Mr. Kurbegovic made in that

21 magazine?

22 A. Yes. The weekly magazine AS. Mr. Kurbegovic gave a statement

23 that the municipality of Sanski Most will be incorporated in the region of

24 Banja Luka if -- only if the River Sana will start flowing in the opposite

25 direction, namely if it changes the directions and it goes -- begins

1 flowing upstream. When stopped at that checkpoint and when our documents

2 were checked, the chief of police took the ID, read the name and surname

3 of Kurbegovic Redzo. And at the time a soldier was in the container unit.

4 He was reading the magazine AS, and at the moment -- he was reading this

5 statement made by Redzo Kurbegovic. And when the policeman who was

6 reading the name from the identity card of Redzo -- then the soldier said,

7 "Who is this man who gave such statements?" And it was at that point

8 then that we were picked up and taken away for interrogation.

9 Q. Now, Mr. --

10 JUDGE AGIUS: One moment, Mr. Cayley.

11 Was this particular edition of the AS magazine the current edition

12 or a past edition?

13 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Oh, it was the current issue.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: Current issue. Okay. It just happened to be the

15 latest issue of the magazine, in other words, the most recent at the

16 time.

17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Well, it ought to be like that,

18 yes.

19 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay, thank you.

20 Yes, sorry, Mr. Cayley for interrupting you.

21 MR. CAYLEY: I have a few more questions on this, and then if you

22 want to take a break at this point.

23 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I think with the indulgence of the -- how long

24 do you expect before we take the break?

25 MR. CAYLEY: Well, I was going to finish with this document, and

1 then I saw we'd go on for, I think, an hour and a half. And then if you

2 wanted to take a break, Your Honour.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, exactly. Any time you feel like, Mr. Cayley.

4 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you, Mr. President.

5 Q. Now, you say, Mr. Karabeg, that you were questioned at the

6 military barracks. What questions were you asked, if you can recall? If

7 you can't recall simply say "I cannot remember." But if you can, can you

8 tell the Judges what questions you were asked.

9 A. Well, in concrete, they asked us what we were doing in Sarajevo,

10 how long did we stay in Sarajevo. I believe that -- I felt free, and I

11 told them that I was the president of the executive board of the

12 municipality of Sanski Most, and that is why it also ended in this way it

13 ended, namely that they let us go after four and a half hours.

14 Q. Now, you say that you were made to make a statement. What were --

15 what did you say in that statement, if you can recall?

16 A. In that statement, I stated that my name is Karabeg Mirzet, that

17 I'm from Sanski Most, that I am the president of the executive board of

18 the municipality of Sanski Most, that I -- that I was on a business trip,

19 on official matters. I remember that because they -- there were

20 complaints made in connection with that, and they insisted that I make a

21 longer statement. And in connection with that, they also attacked that my

22 handwriting is no good. I will just mention that because of that, that --

23 I won't say I was forced, but I was asked to write in Cyrillic script, but

24 I answered that I don't know how to write in Cyrillic.

25 MR. CAYLEY: I think if you wish, Mr. President. How long do you

1 wish to take?

2 JUDGE AGIUS: Thirty minutes.

3 MR. CAYLEY: Okay.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: [Microphone not activated]

5 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour. Microphone.

6 JUDGE AGIUS: I'm sorry. Thank you. Thirty minutes. Thirty

7 minutes, Mr. Cayley.

8 --- Recess taken at 12.16 p.m.

9 --- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.

10 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, Mr. Cayley. You may proceed. Thank you.

11 MR. CAYLEY: Thank you. Mr. President, one small matter. There

12 was a witness who was due to appear next week who for personal reasons is

13 unable to come until later. I don't have the full details, but I'm going

14 to get them before we break at lunchtime so I can inform the Court and the

15 Defence of the change in the witness order.

16 Q. Witness, we left off in March of 1992. And I'd like to remain in

17 that month for a little longer. In or about March of 1992, you saw a

18 number of helicopters flying around Sanski Most. Do you recall that?

19 A. Yes, I do recall it.

20 Q. If you can remember, can you tell the Judges --

21 MR. CAYLEY: And if the witness could be given Prosecutor's

22 Exhibit 757.2, which is a map of Sanski Most.

23 Q. Witness, if you can -- and again, if you can't remember, say so.

24 Do you remember where you saw those helicopters in Sanski Most?

25 MR. CAYLEY: And if it could be placed on the ELMO. And if

1 Mr. Karabeg could be given a pointer so that he can show the Judges.

2 A. Kruhari, Podlug.

3 Q. So you saw helicopters in Kruhari and Podlug. Anywhere else, if

4 you can remember?

5 A. I saw them also in Dabar. They were heading to Dabar.

6 Q. What sort of helicopters were they? Do you recall?

7 A. These were military helicopters.

8 Q. How did you know they were military helicopters?

9 A. There were no other helicopters flying over these areas except for

10 military helicopters.

11 Q. Did you know at the time what they were actually doing in those

12 villages?

13 A. Yes, we did know.

14 Q. What were they doing?

15 A. They were bringing in weapons.

16 Q. How did you know that? How did you know they were bringing in

17 weapons?

18 A. We knew that they were bringing in weapons from certain -- we

19 heard that from individual Serbs who were talking about it.

20 Q. But you yourself never actually saw weapons being offloaded one of

21 these helicopters?

22 A. No. No, I haven't, no I've never seen it personally.

23 Q. How many times did you see helicopters in and around Sanski Most

24 in these three villages?

25 A. Well, I saw the helicopters when they were landing in Kruhari and

1 in Podlug. These are villages in close proximity of Sanski Most. In

2 other words, these are almost suburbs of Sanski Most. They're -- the

3 distance is some 2 or 3 kilometres from Sanski Most. As far as Dabar is

4 concerned, I saw them heading in that direction of Dabar, because Dabar is

5 much further from Sanski Most and it's also a scattered village on a

6 broader area than Kruhari and -- of Kruhari and the other villages.

7 Q. And Kruhari, Podlug, and Dabar are all Serbian villages; is

8 that right?

9 A. Yes, indeed.

10 Q. When you say "military helicopters," you mean helicopters

11 belonging to the JNA?

12 A. Yes, helicopters of the JNA. Yes.

13 MR. CAYLEY: Actually, if the map could remain there for the

14 moment.

15 Q. Now, I want you to turn your mind to the principal political

16 discussion that is you remember taking place in late March and early April

17 1992 in the municipal assembly. What was the main issue that the SDS was

18 raising and discussing in the municipal assembly in March and April of

19 1992 as far as you remember?

20 A. Well, the main issue was the proclamation of the municipality of

21 Sanski Most as Serbian Sanski Most, and the integration of that

22 municipality in the region of Banja Luka. During the assembly sessions,

23 this issue was never placed on the agenda except for the last session held

24 on the 6th -- or the 7th of April, 1992.

25 Q. Now, you've already confirmed to the Court that no single party

1 had an absolute majority in the municipal assembly. Was the reason why

2 this matter was never placed on the agenda because the SDS did not have a

3 sufficient number of seats in the assembly to place it on the agenda?

4 A. Yes, indeed.

5 Q. Now, as far as Sanski Most integrating into the Banja Luka region,

6 did you ever discuss this matter with any of the senior SDS members in

7 Sanski Most?

8 A. Yes, I did discuss it with the president of the municipal board of

9 SDS of Sanski Most, with Brkic [As interpreted]. And what did he say to

10 you about the integration of Sanski Most into the Banja Luka region?

11 A. He said that they didn't put it forward as yet but that they will

12 and they will place it on the agenda under pressure from Banja Luka --

13 that is, from the pressure exerted by Krajisnik and Brdjanin.

14 Q. Now, did he specifically mention those two names to you, Krajisnik

15 and Brdjanin, as far as you can remember, that that's where the pressure

16 was coming from in Banja Luka?

17 A. Yes, he did, because we were really exceptionally close. We had

18 very good relations. There was empathy between the two of us. Don't

19 misunderstand it. That person studied in Novi Sad, but he was from

20 Sanski Most. And our first contacts were such that we then became

21 friends.

22 Q. Now, Mr. Karabeg, in the transcript it says that the president of

23 the municipal board of the SDS of Sanski Most was Brkic. Can you give the

24 Court the full name of this man that you're speaking about, this man with

25 whom you had empathy.

1 A. Vlado Vrkes is the name.

2 JUDGE AGIUS: May I suggest something to you, Mr. Cayley. Could

3 the witness be shown his statement and refer to the first page where he

4 lists the SDS representatives and point to us whether this person that

5 he's mentioned -- mentioning features in that list, because that would

6 solve the spelling problem and everything.

7 THE WITNESS: [Indicates]

8 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. We can note on the monitor that the witness is

9 pointing to the first person that appears in that list, namely Vlado

10 Vrkes. Thank you.

11 MR. CAYLEY: I suggest for the purposes of the transcript, Your

12 Honour, the witness is referring to page 2 of his statement of the 24th

13 and 25th of July of 1999, and he's referring to the Bosnian version of

14 that statement.

15 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. I thank you, Mr. Cayley.

16 MR. CAYLEY:

17 Q. Now, Witness, you state that Mr. Vrkes told you that pressure was

18 being exerted by the two named individuals. Did he explain to you what

19 kind of pressure was being exerted?

20 A. Well, that it's high time that Sanski Most be proclaimed as

21 Serbian Sanski Most and that it's high time that Sanski Most be integrated

22 in the region, because it's the only municipality out of the 17

23 municipalities in the Bosnian Krajina area which hasn't been integrated

24 and -- the assembly has not yet decided on this matter.

25 Q. Did Mr. Vrkes express to you his views on this pressure being

1 exerted upon him?

2 A. Well, he -- he supported that, and they were constantly asking for

3 this. But my assumption is that this was also a conviction that maybe we

4 would accept this and that in the assembly they would get 31 votes for

5 this, 31-vote majority out of the 60 possible votes. Frankly speaking, we

6 expected this question to be raised even much earlier, but it happened at

7 the beginning of April 1992. So at a certain point also this question had

8 to be -- this issue had to be raised on the -- placed on the agenda. And

9 I repeat, it had to be placed on the agenda.

10 Q. Now, you've already stated that the municipal assembly stopped

11 meeting on the 6th or 7th of April of 1992. Did the municipal assembly

12 ever vote on the issue of Sanski Most joining the Banja Luka region of

13 municipalities?

14 A. No, it did not. We set up a committee which I was a member of, in

15 order to try to find a solution and to place this on the agenda. And this

16 committee then -- we parted our ways and we never reconvened. This was

17 the last session of the legally formed assembly of the municipality of

18 Sanski Most.

19 Q. We'll come back to the discussions that you had subsequent to the

20 final meeting of the assembly.

21 MR. CAYLEY: But if the witness could now be shown Prosecutor's

22 Exhibit 608.

23 Q. Now, Witness, I do not wish you to read this entire order. What

24 interests me are two things. First of all, the preliminary paragraph; and

25 secondly, the first paragraph of the operative part of the order. Now,

1 you will see that this is an order which is from the command of the 5th

2 Corps. It is signed apparently on behalf of General Momir Talic. And you

3 will see that in relevant part, there is a comment on the complexity of

4 the political and security situation in Sanski Most, Prijedor, Kljuc,

5 Mrkonjic Grad, and Sipovo, and then an order to the 10th Partisan

6 Division -- to the 6th Partisan Brigade to pull out of a certain area and

7 then to redeploy into the Sanski Most region. Now, the question that I

8 have for you is: Do you recall the arrival of the 6th Partisan Brigade in

9 Sanski Most in early April of 1992?

10 A. I do.

11 Q. Now, in terms of the significance of that event, can you tell the

12 Judges how things changed after the arrival of that brigade, whether they

13 got better, whether they got worse.

14 A. That is considered the date that all evil began in Sanski Most.

15 That brigade was deployed in such a way that checkpoints were established

16 in the town of Sanski Most and even outside it in certain villages.

17 Q. Now, these checkpoints, if you can remember, what was their

18 purpose?

19 A. Well, you see, at first the citizens would be stopped simply to be

20 asked to show their IDs. All citizens of Sanski Most municipality,

21 regardless of nationality. A few days later citizens of Bosniak and

22 Croatian nationality or ethnicity started to be stopped, their vehicles

23 searched in detail. There was an increase on the part of those soldiers

24 of -- incidence of shooting and intimidation of the population with

25 automatic weapons. And also, mistreatment in the sense of derogatory

1 terms like balija and Ustasha. "What are you doing to us in Croatia,"

2 they would say.

3 Q. Now, if you the remember, who was the commander of the 6th

4 Partisan Brigade in April of 1992?

5 A. Colonel Basara. I met him then, and that was when I had my first

6 contact with him.

7 Q. Now, the members of the 6th Partisan Brigade, the soldiers of the

8 6th Partisan Brigade, from what part of Bosnia-Herzegovina were these

9 soldiers recruited?

10 A. From the municipality of Sanski Most mostly.

11 Q. How did the Serbian population react to the coming of the 6th

12 Krajina Brigade back to Sanski Most?

13 A. They were pleased and satisfied.

14 Q. How did these soldiers behave in the town?

15 A. Well, most of the soldiers behaved in an unruly manner, in an

16 arrogant manner. They drank a lot. What was the worst was their

17 intimidation of the population by firing their automatic weapons into the

18 air.

19 Q. Did you yourself see soldiers who were drunk in the town of Sanski

20 Most?

21 A. Oh, yes. In the street. I would walk around in the streets, and

22 they would be in the streets. I didn't, true enough, go into the coffee

23 bars and other establishments where they were.

24 Q. Did you see soldiers firing off their weapons into the air?

25 A. I did.

1 Q. Now, you've stated to us that there came a time when Bosniak and

2 Croat persons started to be stopped, their vehicles searched in detail.

3 Do you know whether searches of people of Serb ethnicity, these intensive

4 searches were taking place at the same time?

5 A. No. I personally on a number of occasions was searched, both I

6 and the vehicle.

7 Q. Why were Serbs no longer searched?

8 A. Well, you see, at first we welcomed it. We welcomed the fact that

9 there was no distinction made. So we've come and we will act in this way,

10 even-handedly. But a few days later, we'll act in the way we had planned

11 to act anyway.

12 Q. Now, did you meet with Colonel Basara shortly after the brigade

13 arrived in Sanski Most?

14 A. I did.

15 Q. And why did he say the brigade had come to Sanski Most?

16 A. He said that the brigade had come to Sanski Most to keep the peace

17 and to suppress the extremists who had appeared attached to the SDS and

18 the Serb people.

19 Q. Did he keep to that representation, to that undertaking, Colonel

20 Basara? Did he keep the peace and suppress the extremists?

21 A. No. But please let me add: My contacts with Basara took place

22 only after that assembly meeting fell apart. And when the leadership of

23 the SDS didn't want to have anything to do with us.

24 Q. Did you believe Colonel Basara when you first met him that his

25 purpose was to keep the peace in Sanski Most?

1 A. Well, let me tell you, we didn't believe him. But the situation

2 was such that we had no choice but to believe him and to win him over, to

3 do what he had promised to do. And he had promised that he would

4 establish peace in Sanski Most.

5 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit

6 610.

7 Q. Now, Witness, you will see that this is a document dated the 3rd

8 of April of 1992, apparently signed by Nedeljko Rasula, and it is a

9 decision on the Serbian municipality of Sanski Most to become part of the

10 Autonomous Region of Krajina.

11 A. Yes.

12 Q. And you can see from the file number, from the BROI [phoen]

13 number, that it is in fact document 1 of 1992.

14 A. Yes.

15 Q. Were you aware in April of 1992 that the SDS -- that the Serbian

16 people's Assembly in Sanski Most had made this decision?

17 A. No.

18 Q. And I'm right in saying that the municipal assembly went on

19 meeting after this decision had been taken by the Serbian people's

20 assembly?

21 A. You mean the legal municipal assembly of Sanski Most? No. We, as

22 I said, on the 6th or 7th of April, we convened a meeting of the legal

23 assembly of Sanski Most municipality which was interrupted, as I have

24 already said.

25 Q. Do you regard this decision as legal or illegal?

1 A. All this indicates -- just a moment, please. I didn't quite

2 understand your question. In what respect do you mean legal or illegal?

3 Q. Was this decision for Sanski Most to join the Autonomous Region of

4 Krajina a lawful decision of the municipal bodies of Sanski Most?

5 A. No. This decision was made probably by deputies of Serb ethnicity

6 who were living in Sanski Most municipality, probably 24 of them, because

7 as I mentioned, the municipality had 24 SDS deputies -- no, 23. I'm

8 sorry.

9 Q. Let's move to the period between the 11th of April and the 19th of

10 April of 1992. And I think I'm right in saying that discussions took

11 place between the SDA and the SDS. Is that right?

12 A. Yes.

13 Q. And what did those discussions concern?

14 A. Well, it was like this: After the assembly was -- meeting was

15 suspended or fell apart, we sought contact so that we could continue the

16 work of the lawful bodies, the work of the lawful assembly, the work of

17 the lawful executive council, and the work of all the municipal bodies

18 within the territory of Sanski Most municipality. This was what we did

19 and the HDZ.

20 Q. Were there discussions during this period concerning the splitting

21 of the municipality?

22 A. There were.

23 Q. Can you tell the Judges about those discussions.

24 A. Representatives of the SDS sought to have the Sanski Most

25 municipality divided to correspond to the ethnic composition of the

1 population, which we did not accept under any circumstances. We wanted

2 and insisted on the municipality of Sanski Most remaining such as it was,

3 a municipality of all three peoples inhabiting it as well as all other

4 peoples.

5 Q. Let's speak a little bit about the police force in Sanski Most.

6 What happened in respect of the police force on or about the 11th of April

7 of 1992, if you can remember?

8 A. That was when the policemen were called and they were told that

9 they needed to sign loyalty to the Serbian municipality of Sanski Most,

10 that they had to wear insignia of the Serbian police, and that on the

11 building of the police, the militia as we called it in those days, a

12 Serbian flag should be hoisted.

13 Q. Did any non-Serbs sign the loyalty oath -- take the loyalty oath

14 and accept this position?

15 A. No one accepted but a policeman of Croat ethnicity, one policeman,

16 who apologised and said that he had to accept because he had been

17 sanctioned by the police in Banja Luka and he had been sent to work in

18 Sanski Most as a punishment. And as he was living with his family in

19 Banja Luka, he had to commute daily between Sanski Most and Banja Luka.

20 And that is why he accepted.

21 MR. CAYLEY: If the witness could be shown Prosecutor's Exhibit

22 759, please.

23 If you'd give that to me, I'll turn it to the right page.

24 No. No. 7 -- it's all right. In fact, I'll give you my copy,

25 because I have the English version. I think I've -- this is Rasula's

1 diary, 759.

2 Q. Now, Witness, I know you don't read Cyrillic very well, and I know

3 this document is difficult to read, but if you look to the right-hand side

4 of that diary, there are entries from the 14th of April of 1992. First of

5 all, do you recognise this handwriting at all?

6 A. No, I don't recognise it.

7 Q. Now, what I want to do is to read to you what is stated in this

8 diary about events taking place at the time and then ask you a number of

9 questions. And I'll summarise some of it for the ease of the

10 interpreters. But in essence -- well, the title of the meeting is "Course

11 of action in taking over power and establishing the Serbian municipality

12 of Sanski Most," dated 14 April 1992. And in essence, it then goes on to

13 say, "That following intra-party agreements based on the principles based

14 upon electorally agreed on regulations" -- it doesn't actually make

15 much sense -- "and on the basis of electoral results dictated by political

16 events in Yugoslavia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, a radical mode of obtaining

17 objectives has been undertaken, a path which had to be followed by the

18 Serbian people.

19 And then it refers to a meeting held on the 14th of April, 1992

20 where three matters are decided. "That negotiations with the SDA

21 concerning the division of the Sanski Most municipality be drawn to a

22 conclusion; that employees of the public security service declare their

23 loyalty to the Serbian Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina and their acceptance

24 of Serbian symbols and insignia; that any possibility of opposition or

25 intervention on behalf of the adversary be thwarted." There then appears

1 a list of names.

2 Now, Mr. Karabeg, you were in Sanski Most at the time, but you

3 were obviously not at this meeting. But do you recall the date on which

4 the negotiations with your party ceased concerning the division of Sanski

5 Most?

6 A. That would have been about the 13th or 14th of April, 1992, when

7 we didn't want to discuss at all the possibility of a division of Sanski

8 Most.

9 Q. Now, this document also states that "Employees of the public

10 security service declare loyalty and wear Serbian symbols." And you've

11 already referred to that. Were you aware at the time that this meeting

12 had taken place that this special meeting on establishing the Serbian

13 municipality of Sanski Most had taken place?

14 A. No, I was not.

15 Q. When was your last meeting with representatives of the SDS?

16 A. The last meeting with representatives of the SDS was held in the

17 municipality building on the 18th of April, 1992.

18 Q. Now, on the 17th of April of 1992, I think you were contacted by

19 the Muslim and Croat police officers in Sanski Most. Do you recall that?

20 A. Yes, I remember.

21 Q. What did they speak to you about?

22 A. Well, you see, we -- this was the first time -- the first time

23 that the SDS raised this issue was on the 11th of April, 1992. The

24 question of the police, their loyalty, the symbols of the Serbian police,

25 and the flag. On two occasions we requested that this matter should be

1 decided by us, that we should be given 48 hours' time to decide, and this

2 was accepted once and the second time as well, and then Friday came. And

3 I was told that the policemen had been thrown out of the building of the

4 police station because no one accepted this loyalty and that in the

5 building, there was Rasula and Colonel Basara. When Rasula told them,

6 "This is not the right place for you. Get lost from here." I was

7 informed about this. I went to the building of the police station. I

8 asked to talk to someone. I didn't see Rasula or Basara there because

9 they had left. And I stayed there until 1.00. I was there and Redzo

10 Kurbegovic; we were together. And I said, "My God, we asked to be given a

11 part of the building where the Secretariat for Defence and the TO was

12 housed. They won't give it to us. Our only solution is go to the -- is

13 to go to the municipality building," and that is what we did. I have to

14 point out once again that during those days, we were having talks in the

15 police building. And while we were there, there were two military APCs

16 with weapons who were circling round the building. When we went to the

17 municipality building, I was informed that our policemen, that is,

18 policemen of Bosniak and Croat ethnicity, were in the building of the fire

19 brigade centre. I have to observe the following: In the meantime,

20 Colonel Basara did come to see me. He spent some 10 or 15 minutes with

21 me. To this day, I don't know why he had come, but I do know that his

22 bodyguard and personal driver Macola [phoen] -- I don't know for what

23 reason -- pointed his pistol here at my temple and threatened me. So they

24 left straight away. They went to Palanka, where the brigade was based.

25 And the policemen from the fire brigade centre, all of them, came to the

1 municipality building.

2 Q. If I could interrupt you there, Witness. What did Colonel Basara

3 talk to you about during that meeting, if you can recall?

4 A. It wasn't really a meeting, you see. He just dropped in the

5 building. And as I said, I don't know to this day why he came, what he

6 wanted.

7 Q. Did he see his driver put a pistol to your head?

8 A. We were in the same room.

9 Q. Did he say anything when he saw his driver put a pistol to your

10 head?

11 A. No. No.

12 Q. Now, we've got to the position -- you've already said in your

13 evidence where you and the police are now in the municipal building. And

14 I want to very quickly before the end of the session today move to the

15 19th of April of 1992.

16 I'm sorry. Let's go back to the 17th of April. A meeting in Tomo

17 Delic's cafe, do you recall that meeting?

18 A. I do.

19 Q. Apart from yourself, who was present at that meeting?

20 A. Apart from me, there was Redzo Kurbegovic, the president of the

21 SDA; Sabic Suad; Biscevic Faik; Tunjic Anto, president of the HDZ; and I

22 can't remember now -- there was another representative of the HDZ. I

23 can't remember his name just now.

24 Q. Who from the SDS was present at that meeting, if you can

25 remember?

1 A. On behalf of the SDS, there was Vrkes Vlado, Boro Savanovic,

2 and Tomo Delic. And that was in his cafe.

3 Q. What was discussed at that meeting?

4 A. I think it was conducted in a tolerant atmosphere. In fact, Tomo

5 Delic treated us to drinks, and he said that we should resolve the problem

6 and that we would continue the talks, the most probable solution would be

7 to split up the municipality building, that half would be given to us and

8 half to the SDS.

9 Q. Did you arrange to meet again with them that day?

10 A. Yes, we did. We arranged to meet at 10.00 in the evening, at 2200

11 hours, in the municipality building.

12 Q. Did that meeting take place?

13 A. That meeting did not take place, because around half past 9.00

14 they called me up in person --

15 Q. Who called you up?

16 A. Vlado and Tomo -- Tomo Delic.

17 Q. What did they say to you when they called you up?

18 A. Well, let me see. They in a wailing voice asked me that we should

19 leave the municipality building because their extremists from the SOS had

20 decided to attack the municipality. They cannot and dare not come to that

21 meeting; and that they appealed to us to abandon the building, to leave

22 the building.

23 Q. How did you respond to that?

24 A. Our response was that we would not leave the building under any

25 circumstances, and we remained in it.

1 Q. Let's move to the 19th of April of 1992. On this day, I'm right

2 in saying that you were still in the municipality building; correct?

3 A. Yes, throughout that time. I also spent the nights there.

4 Q. And I think on the 19th of April, you got a call from Mr. Rasula;

5 correct?

6 A. Yes.

7 Q. What did he say to you?

8 A. In concrete terms, Rasula called up Suad Sabic and informed him.

9 It was about half past 9.00 -- that he was setting us an ultimatum, that

10 by 10.00 we should leave and go to the park in front of the building with

11 our hands up, lay down our weapons, and nothing would happen to us if we

12 acted in that way.

13 MR. CAYLEY: Mr. President, I think an appropriate time.

14 JUDGE AGIUS: I fully agree.

15 Mr. Karabeg, we have to stop here for today. Tomorrow morning we

16 will continue. And hopefully we should be able to start with your

17 testimony sharp at 9.00 in the morning. This morning I did send someone

18 to explain to you the reason why you came -- you were introduced late into

19 this courtroom. The reason was that we had a few procedural matters to

20 discuss here. They had absolutely nothing to do with you. And please do

21 accept our apologies for having kept you waiting in the room for more than

22 three quarters of an hour. Thank you.

23 Yes Mr. Cayley.

24 MR. CAYLEY: It's just on the order of witnesses, Your Honour.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes.

1 MR. CAYLEY: Witness 7.13 -- that's BT16 -- witness with

2 protective measures is replacing Witness 7.112.

3 JUDGE AGIUS: So Witness 7.112 will be delayed.

4 MR. CAYLEY: Yes.

5 JUDGE AGIUS: And 7.13?

6 MR. CAYLEY: Will replace.

7 JUDGE AGIUS: Okay.

8 MR. CAYLEY: So after --

9 JUDGE AGIUS: After 7.76; correct?

10 MR. CAYLEY: No. Before 7.76. The order now goes Mr. Karabeg,

11 Mr. Begic --

12 JUDGE AGIUS: And then I have 7.48.

13 MR. CAYLEY: Yes. 7.100, 7.13 --

14 JUDGE AGIUS: No. You've changed it again. This was the last

15 that I was given -- that we were given on the 21st of May, and it was in

16 this order: After the present witness, 7.11 --

17 MR. CAYLEY: No. This witness is --

18 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes. After this witness, then there was 7.11,

19 7.48, 7.76, then 7.112, who is now going to be postponed.

20 MR. CAYLEY: Correct. And he's going to be --

21 JUDGE AGIUS: Replaced by 7.13.

22 MR. CAYLEY: Well, interestingly I've still got 7.76 on this list

23 but not on this list. I'll clarify it with the staff and I'll get back to

24 you.

25 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, please. It's more important for the Defence

1 than to us.

2 MR. CAYLEY: Exactly. And that's why I'm saying I'll clarify it

3 and I'll confirm it tomorrow.

4 JUDGE AGIUS: Yes, I thank you, Mr. Cayley. As usual, you have

5 been most cooperative. Thank you.

6 The sitting is adjourned -- the trial is adjourned until tomorrow

7 morning at 9.00. Thank you.

8 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned

9 at 1.47 p.m., to be reconvened on Tuesday,

10 the 28th day of May, 2002, at 9.00 a.m.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25