1 Thursday, 9 October 2014
2 [Open session]
3 [The accused entered court]
4 --- Upon commencing at 9.01 a.m.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning to everyone in and around the
7 Madam Registrar, could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number
9 IT-04-75-T, the Prosecutor versus Goran Hadzic.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
11 May we have the appearances, please, starting with the
13 MR. OLMSTED: Good morning, Your Honours. Matthew Olmsted and
14 Thomas Laugel for the Prosecution.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
16 Mr. Zivanovic.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Defence of
18 Goran Hadzic, Zoran Zivanovic and Christopher Gosnell.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I'm just suggested for the record that
22 Your Honours are sitting under Rule 15 bis.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] Sorry. Indeed,
24 Mr. Zivanovic. Thank you very much. The record should indeed reflect
25 that we are sitting 15 -- pursuant to Rule 15 bis, Judge Mindua being
2 Please proceed, Mr. Zivanovic.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Thank you, Mr. President.
4 WITNESS: VOJIN SUSA [Resumed]
5 [Witness answered through interpretation]
6 Examination by Mr. Zivanovic: [Continued]
7 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Susa, good morning.
8 A. Good morning.
9 Q. Mr. Susa, yesterday we talked about your contacts in Ilok with
10 the military authorities. First, I would like to ask you if you
11 personally or as the ministry at any point in time went to Ilok and
12 stayed there?
13 A. Yes, I stayed in Ilok by virtue of the fact that I was a
14 minister. My family also moved to Ilok.
15 Q. Can you explain tell us when that was and how that came about?
16 A. This was in the winter of 1991. I already had an office in Ilok
17 where I communicated with people. After I met a gentleman by the name of
18 Andrija Islovak [phoen], who was an accountant in Agrokomerc, he asked me
19 if I had a family. And I said, yes, I did, but we were not together. My
20 husband -- my wife and my son were in one place and my parents and my
21 other child were in another place. And then he suggested that I move
22 into his mother-in-law's house. This was an elderly lady. I agreed and
23 we all moved in there. And so for the first time after a number of
24 months my whole family was together again there.
25 It was a house by the road so that there was a constant danger of
1 incidents. My younger son was naughty by nature, and so after a couple
2 of months I moved to the so-called Sokacko Brdo hill. That's where a
3 gentleman used to live. He was a Serb. He left his house. He moved to
4 Australia. The house belonged to a Croat named Mile Zovko. I moved into
5 the house. Mr. Zovko's wife lived in Ilok. Her name was Miluska
6 [phoen]. She was a Slovak. I was in contact with her. I called her and
7 she said: "Please stay in the house. I am glad that you are there and
8 that you are looking after it in this way." I lived in that house until
10 Very quickly I got in touch with Mr. Mile Zovko as soon as the
11 phone lines were back on, and our contacts were very good and remained
12 very good.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at P1710, tab 575,
15 Q. This is a report by the 1st Guards Motorised Division, report of
16 the 31st of December, 1991, following a meeting at the government's
17 commission which was held the day before on the 30th of December. I
18 wanted to ask you this. You've had the opportunity to see the document.
19 Could you please tell us if you remember the meeting?
20 A. Yes, more or less, I do remember the meeting.
21 Q. In the third paragraph, your address is referred to when you
22 said, among other things, that a large number of refugees did not come at
23 the invitation of the government but in an unorganised manner. Is that
24 something that you said at this meeting?
25 A. Yes, that is correct.
1 Q. Could you please tell us whether any of the military authorities
2 disputed this at the time?
3 A. No, nobody disputed this.
4 Q. You also said that it was the government's wish to maintain
5 accurate records of people who had temporarily occupied homes. Is this
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you know if the army kept any records?
9 A. Yes, they had their records.
10 Q. It also states here that you didn't want to pre-empt any
11 political solutions for the future and that everything was of a temporary
12 nature. Are you able to tell us whether you did say that?
13 A. Yes, I did.
14 Q. Could you please explain now what you meant to say by that, that
15 you did not wish to anticipate a political solution?
16 A. Well, if I'm not mistaken I already spoke about that yesterday or
17 the day before. The arrival of the refugees from the area of
18 Western Slavonia did not mean the definite departure of those people from
19 the Western Slavonia area. We assumed and we wanted those people at some
20 point to return to their homes. We wanted everyone to return to their
21 homes. In that sense, the fact that they were received in the area that
22 we covered was of a temporary nature as assistance to the people in the
23 winter, the winter was just ahead, and so we wanted to provide a roof
24 over their heads. I think I said that.
25 Q. Could you please look at the last paragraph on this page where
1 the words or some parts of the address were interpreted. These are the
2 words of the Deputy Prime Minister Boro Bogunovic.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution objects to this
5 manner of leading the witness through a document. The witness -- rather
6 than asking the witness open questions about this meeting, Mr. Zivanovic
7 is simply putting a document to this witness in a leading manner and
8 asking him to confirm or deny what was said in this document. The better
9 course would be to ask the witness what he recalls he himself said, what
10 other people at the meeting said, and then at that point raise issues
11 that are in this document. But otherwise, it's completely leading and
12 it's entitled to very little weight.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The witness already discussed this document and
14 he's familiar with it, but I could rephrase my question.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please do.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Could you please tell us if you remember what the position of
18 Mr. Boro Bogunovic was at that meeting?
19 A. I don't think that Boro Bogunovic's position was significantly
20 different than my own. I must say that Boro Bogunovic expressed himself
21 in a fairly confused manner, and I'm afraid that whoever drafted the
22 document could not really be specific or precisely define all the things
23 that Boro Bogunovic said. But if we had to come to a final conclusion, I
24 don't think that Boro Bogunovic's position was significantly different
25 from my own. Had it been, it wouldn't have really mattered that much
1 because I was representing the government. I was authorised to state the
2 government's position at that time.
3 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, I just note for the record that
4 his answer verifies my concern, which is the leading nature of this
5 document. He's already commenting on what is written here and
6 interpreting what he believes was the reason for it to have what it says
7 in it.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: It is noted, Mr. Olmsted.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
10 Q. Could you please look at the document now, the last paragraph on
11 that page. Could you please tell us if Boro Bogunovic said at the time
12 that the government wanted to change the structure of the population at
13 any cost?
14 A. No.
15 Q. Can you tell us whether Boro Bogunovic insisted that people are
16 settled and placed under intense artillery fire in the zone of intense
17 combat activities?
18 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please be asked to repeat his
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Could you please repeat your answer because of the interpreters.
22 They didn't hear you.
23 A. In this entire area, there were no intense combat activities.
24 There were no combat activities at all. So this remark could not have
25 been true, even if it had been said. Let me explain. We were talking
1 about Serb refugees here, so I assume that Boro Bogunovic would not place
2 Serb refugees in intense combat zones.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at document
4 from the Prosecution's 65 ter list, that's document 62 -- 6028, tab 653.
5 Q. Could you please tell me if you know if there were any SBWS
6 organs of authority in Lovas at the time-period stated here, the
7 20th of November, 1991?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Can you please look at the fourth paragraph of this document.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think that in the English it
11 goes to the following page where it said that the town commander stayed
12 in the village of Lovas.
13 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's note: We do not see the
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] And that he wanted to review the
16 troops and that there was a contact with the commander and the president
17 of the Serbian autonomous region, Savic.
18 Q. Was there a representative of the Serbian autonomous region who
19 whose name was Savic, in Lovas?
20 A. I don't know this man and there was no such function as president
21 of the SAO. The person was obviously misrepresenting himself.
22 Q. It states here that this person who was a commander of some unit
23 over there was contacted and he was told that he had to place himself
24 under the Lovas Town Command, otherwise the Ilok command will be
25 disarmed. Could you please tell us: At that time, could the Ilok
1 command do that at that time? Did it have the possibility of doing
2 something like that?
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
4 MR. OLMSTED: The witness's last answer is he doesn't know who
5 this individual is and anything about this, so how can this witness
6 comment on the rest of the paragraph? It could be completely
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, it is not good interpretation of the
9 witness answer. The witness answer is that he --
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: The witness should repeat his answer then.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- he had no such function.
12 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I will gladly repeat my answer.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That he doesn't know the man and there was no
14 such function.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, just one moment. The witness will
16 repeat his answer.
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't know Mr. Savic. The
18 position of the president of the SAO did not exist.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Was there a member of the government by that name?
21 A. As far as I know, there wasn't.
22 Q. A reference is made to a unit that the gentleman was in command
23 of. I'd like to know whether at that time the command of the town of
24 Ilok had the authority to disband a unit which didn't want to be put
25 under its control.
1 A. Yes. It was its legal obligation. It had to do it under the
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honour, I would tender this document into
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
6 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 6028 will be Exhibit D223.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Did the government participate in the setting up of the police
10 stations in Ilok, Vukovar, Tovarnik, Mirkovci?
11 A. No. There is a very clear report issued by the military about
12 that. It was the military that set up those police stations.
13 Q. Did the Ministry of Defence of Slavonia, Baranja, and
14 Western Srem appoint commanders or staffs?
15 A. No, not at that time.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up P373,
17 tab 685. I'm interested in the second page of the original, paragraph 2.
18 Q. This is a report dealing with the setting up of the five police
19 stations in the places that I have just mentioned. As you are reading
20 paragraph 2, would you say that this reflects the situation as existed at
21 the time in the area?
22 A. Yes, that's how things were. The military influenced the setting
23 up of those bodies.
24 Q. And now can you look at paragraph 4. A reference is made to
25 dealing with the issues of settling and resettling. How would you
1 explain this wording? What is resettling? What is the issue of
2 resettling that the military reports about in this document?
3 A. You would have to ask them. We never dealt with the concept of
4 resettling. We always dealt with the issue of settling. These are
5 different things. We never dealt with the concept of resettling.
6 Q. Under 4, it says that the organ for the civilian issues of this
7 command is confronted with the issues of settling and resettling. Did
8 you hear from them what you meant?
9 A. It would have been very good if they had presented that problem
10 to us either in a written or a verbal form. They never did that.
11 Q. If we skip the following paragraph, we will come to the next one
12 where a reference is made to the self-styled representatives of the
13 authorities of the Serbian region. When the government heard from the
14 military that some people turned up and introduced themselves as the
15 representatives of the government, how did you react?
16 A. We were never informed about that. It is very strange that some
17 people are referred to as "self-styled government representatives" and no
18 names are mentioned. The military knew who they were. They should have
19 mentioned their names in the report.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Please bear with me.
21 I would like to call up document 379 under tab 661.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, can counsel please repeat the
23 number? Thank you.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Before I call up the document, I
25 have a couple of questions.
1 Q. We are talking about the area of Ilok and surrounding villages.
2 Who set up the staffs and units of the Territorial Defence?
3 A. Colonel Belic says in his report that it was the military that
4 did that.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] P379, tab 661.
6 Q. It says here, inter alia, that TO units and staffs in towns are
7 in the process of being established. This is what we read in
8 paragraph 1. Could you please tell me whether this reflects what you
9 knew at the time?
10 A. I know nothing about that. As I'm reading this text, I can see
11 that they were being set up by the military. That's what I see.
12 Q. You were the justice minister. Did you issue a binding
13 instruction about the work of the commissions for temporary settlement?
14 A. I didn't do it as the justice minister. I did it as a government
15 member in charge of that issue. Yes, I did.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we now look at document under
17 tab 577. It's on the Prosecutor's 65 ter list under number 6115.
18 Q. Could you please tell us whether this is the instruction that you
20 A. Yes, that's the instruction.
21 Q. Could you please tell us in more detail what you meant by this
22 instruction when it comes to the contracts on the exchange of assets and
23 property with citizens of Croatian ethnicity. Why did you say that those
24 contracts should be considered null and void and that they cannot have
25 any legally binding consequences?
1 A. Of course during a war or an imminent threat of war, I thought
2 that conditions were not in place for all the parties to be equal when
3 contracts were being signed. Let me illustrate that by an example. When
4 a Serb came to a Croat and said, "I want to sign an agreement with you to
5 exchange our properties," in my view such an agreement would be null and
6 void because it could be assumed that a Croat accepted that under duress.
7 In the times of war or imminent threat of war, there can be no
8 conventional exchange or sale of property at all. So this was the gist
9 of that binding instruction that I issued.
10 Q. It says here that the consequences of any exchange or sale of
11 property that happened after the 25th of September should be considered
12 null and void. Is that for the same reasons or some other reasons?
13 A. It is for the same reasons because according to the information
14 that we had, their contracts had already been signed on the exchange of
15 assets under suspicious conditions. We did not want to participate in
16 any of that because we believed that the consequences of such legal
17 transactions at some point would be huge and maybe even irreparable.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I would tender this document into
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
21 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 6115 becomes Exhibit D224.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
24 Q. Once the commission was set up by the government of Slavonia,
25 Baranja, and Western Srem, did the Yugoslav People's Army, i.e. the
1 command of the town of Ilok, continue to participate in dealing with the
2 issue of settling refugees in the area?
3 A. All the time. Until the moment the JNA withdrew from the area,
4 they were involved in the settlement, and I won't say that they
5 participated in the resettlement, of individuals in the territory of
6 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.
7 Q. According to what you know, the command of the town of Ilok,
8 i.e., the military personnel in charge of those issues, were they in
9 direct communication with local civilian authorities or did that
10 communication go via the government?
11 A. They were in very direct communication with everybody. They
12 bypassed us in everything.
13 Q. Did they issue any instructions, orders, or any such thing to
14 those local bodies of authority?
15 A. Yes, they did.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up P2280
17 under tab 663.
18 Q. This is a report by the command of the town of Ilok, dating to
19 March 1992. Under 7, which is the last paragraph, it says that the
20 commander of the town held a meeting with presidents of local communes,
21 Territorial Defence Staff commanders, and other responsible officials to
22 discuss the tasks assigned to them by the 1st Motorised Corps command.
23 Were you invited to such a meeting as members of the commission that was
24 in charge of Ilok? You were no longer in the government at that time.
25 A. No, I wasn't. But there were other people, and they were not
1 invited to such meetings.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see the next page,
3 page 3. In English it would be the previous page. In fact, it would be
4 the last page in English as well.
5 Q. This report lists questions that require urgent answers regarding
6 the community of Ilok, and you have a list of places. In the first
7 question we see:
8 "What is the status of new settlers, what does it entail? This
9 is the biggest problem," et cetera.
10 Did the military authorities ever address the government with
11 these questions, asking for answers or maybe consulting you about this?
12 A. They did not with me, but I can't say whether they tried with
13 somebody else. I never received such a list of questions to answer.
14 Q. Did you hear from any of your colleagues in the government that
15 the military authorities had addressed them with such issues?
16 A. When I say I don't know, that means I've never heard of such a
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, it seems I did not ask the
19 tendering of the previous document into evidence. It is from tab 577.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: And --
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And I would tender it.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: And the number is, for the Registrar?
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is exhibit number from the Rule 65 ter
24 Prosecution list 6115.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
1 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the number was already admitted and
2 marked as D224.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Oh, sorry.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Thank you.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Can you tell us to the best of your knowledge, was this area ever
7 visited by international observers?
8 A. I don't know. They did not have any contact with me.
9 Q. I will come back to a couple of documents about this, but now I'd
10 like to move on to the period after the creation of the Republic of
11 Serbian Krajina. Would you be able to tell me, if you know, whether you
12 were involved in the writing of the constitution of the RSK?
13 A. None of us from Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem was involved
14 in the writing of the constitution of the Republic of Serbian Krajina in
15 its original form as it was adopted in Borovo Selo.
16 Q. Can you remember for what territory this constitution of the RSK
17 was written?
18 A. I can tell you, because it was very obvious, it said: Only for
19 the territory of SAO Krajina.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we see tab 591, L3. In
21 English could we look at paragraph -- Article 3, in English. It's the
22 next page.
23 Q. This is Article 3 that you have discussed.
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Can you remember, under this constitution, what did the election
1 of the president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina look like? How did
2 it happen?
3 A. Direct general elections.
4 Q. Do you remember, according to that constitution, who elected the
5 government and to whom was the government answerable?
6 A. The government was answerable to the president and the assembly.
7 At the proposal of the assembly, the prime minister and other ministers'
8 designates were appointed. The president was able to replace or dismiss
9 the prime minister designate.
10 Q. Did you participate in the writing of amendments to the
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Can you tell us, did these amendments to the constitution change
14 this Article 3 that regard the territory of the RSK?
15 A. Yes, it had to be changed because the RSK was not only created
16 for the territory of Krajina but also Western Slavonia and Slavonia,
17 Baranja, and Western Srem. These three regions practically joined
18 together to form the Republic of Serbian Krajina.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at L5, that's
20 tab 593.
21 Q. This is in the first amendment.
22 A. Amendment 1, para 1.
23 Q. Did this amendment practically include the region of Slavonia,
24 Baranja, and Western Srem into the Republic of Serbian Krajina?
25 A. Yes.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at the third
2 amendment. It's on the same page in Serbian.
3 Q. Could you now tell us what arrangements were made for the
4 election of the president of the republic?
5 A. He was elected by the assembly. But you can see that from the
6 previous amendment, amendment 2.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at amendment 2,
8 then, on the same page of the original.
9 Q. Under this amendment, the assembly not only elects and dismisses
10 the president but also oversees his work. Was that the same arrangement
11 as in the previous version?
12 A. No.
13 Q. Can you tell me, did these amendments change anything in the
14 responsibility of the president towards the assembly --
15 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter didn't hear the second
17 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now he was responsible only to the
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Can you see in which amendment it is stipulated?
21 A. If you could make this text a little larger, I could see it.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I believe we should move to the
23 next page in English. Could we zoom in on the next amendment in the
25 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now you can see it. From the
1 amendment 4, para 2.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. Do you recall what was the constitutional position of the
4 president of the republic vis-ā-vis the Serbian army of Krajina? Did it
5 remain the same as in the constitution or was it changed?
6 A. You mean the previous constitution?
7 Q. I mean the constitution as it was adopted. These are amendments.
8 A. It changed. Now the president could propose the commander of the
9 Territorial Defence but he was no longer able to replace him.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at L55, tab 625.
11 Q. If you could look at amendment 8.
12 A. Para 3.
13 Q. Yes, that one. According to para 3, the president of the
14 republic appoints the commander of the Territorial Defence. At that time
15 when this amendment was passed, and it was in May 1992, was the commander
16 of the Territorial Defence in fact the command of the Serbian -- no, no,
17 I made a mistake. The commander of the Territorial Defence, was he
18 already appointed?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Did you participate in the writing of these amendments to the
21 constitution, amendments 1 through 8?
22 A. Yes, I did. But not in this form. This is the final language
23 adopted. The proposed language was quite different.
24 Q. Could you tell us exactly what was different between the
25 proposals and the final version?
1 A. Our proposal did not take into account the still great powers of
2 Milan Babic in SAO Krajina. The first constitution was written for him.
3 But when Goran Hadzic came into power, then all these amendments were
4 necessary, and they all knew it, but at the same time they insisted that
5 some of the amendments be rendered null and void and replaced by these
6 amendments which are not quite appropriate. They explained it by saying,
7 and I could accept it, by saying that the first version envisaged
8 elections of the president by general direct elections and thus was
9 entitled to great powers, whereas in the new version the president was
10 elected solely by the assembly and therefore his scope of powers should
11 be smaller.
12 Q. And the constitutional powers of the president of the republic
13 with further amendments, were they narrowed, did they remain the same,
14 were they expanded?
15 A. They were successively slowly being narrowed.
16 Q. And do you remember if any constitutional amendments were adopted
17 that would change the way in which the president of the republic was
19 A. This was at a later stage when, again, we had political
20 turbulence in the Republic of Serbian Krajina and when one could assume
21 that some other people were pretenders for the presidential post who
22 again felt that they would easily win the direct general election. I can
23 specifically say that this refers to Mr. Milan Martic.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we please look at tab 638.
25 This is 1D3761.
1 Q. You can see that this is the 29th of October -- or, actually,
2 September of 1992. Can you please tell us how this amendment came about,
3 amendment 10 specifically? This is an amendment that you already
5 A. Could you please enlarge the text? I don't see it very well.
6 Yes, this is what I was talking about earlier.
7 Q. You mention Mr. Martic. Could you briefly tell us what was the
8 relationship between Mr. Martic and Goran Hadzic in this period from the
9 elections, from the time when Goran Hadzic was elected as president of
10 the Serbian Krajina onwards?
11 A. Generally, in respect of all of us that were appointed to certain
12 posts and located in the Knin area, there was a kind of mistrust and it
13 was difficult for us to do our job for several reasons. One of them is
14 the long and difficult road in order to get there at all. And secondly,
15 a part of their bodies was in a very chaotic state. So everything was
16 quite difficult. That is how Goran Hadzic was received as well.
17 Most of the population of the SAO Krajina, the former
18 SAO Krajina, did not forgive him for the fact that he, they felt, got
19 Milan Babic out of the game in a very strange way.
20 Q. Could you please clarify that what you mean, that he threw
21 Milan Babic out of the game?
22 A. Because before the Serbian regions were formed and became the
23 Republic of the Serbian Krajina, the favourite person to win the
24 presidential post of this new Republic of Serbian Krajina, judging by his
25 popularity and the media promotion, was Babic. After Milan Babic
1 definitely indicated that he would not accept the Vance Plan at any cost,
2 it was understood that he, as a crucial political factor, had to be
3 pushed out of the game, and he was replaced by Goran Hadzic in the only
4 possible way, by being elected by the assembly, because then he would not
5 even have managed to win the direct general election.
6 In the Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem area, we had a smaller
7 population in relation to the SAO Krajina. We were not well known and it
8 was normal that their politicians would win more votes in any general
9 election in which the majority of the population would take part.
10 Q. And can you tell us what was the actual influence of
11 Goran Hadzic, especially in that area? In the Knin Krajina, in the
12 SAO Krajina, what was his political influence in the period when he was
13 the president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina?
14 A. I'm afraid it was not very great. If you look at his narrowed
15 powers, he did not really have too much authority according to the laws
16 and the regulations, and he did not impose himself. He didn't
17 politically engage himself in that area. He would stay there for as long
18 as he needed to and then he would return to the SBWS area. This is
19 something that was well known, so he really never gained much popularity
20 over there.
21 Q. Do you know where Goran Hadzic lived in that period?
22 A. He lived in Novi Sad during that whole period. That was where
23 his family was. We were all neither here nor there throughout that whole
25 Q. When were you elected into the government of the Republic of
1 Serbian Krajina?
2 A. When Goran was elected president at an assembly session in
3 Borovo Selo, I was elected justice minister.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at L6, please. This
5 is tab 594.
6 Q. You see the decision on the screen now. It states that it was
7 adopted on the 26th of February, 1992. I wanted to ask you something
8 else. I see that the prime minister was elected here as well as 13 other
9 ministers of that government. Could you please tell us, were any
10 ministries left open? Some ministers were perhaps not appointed at that
11 time; is that right?
12 A. Yes, they were not appointed because we tried to have equal
13 representation throughout that whole area, and certain areas simply at
14 that time did not have the people that they could propose for those
15 ministerial posts. There were four or five ministries left unfilled here
16 and their posts were filled later.
17 Q. I can see that the culture ministry was left without a minister.
18 No culture minister was appointed at that time. Are you able to tell us
19 if you know whether somebody was appointed later and who was that?
20 A. Yes. It was Sergej Veselinovic.
21 Q. Do you know if the government in the beginning after the
22 elections adopted any principled directives or conclusions about its
23 work, adopted any goals?
24 A. Yes, it did draw conclusions about its goals. Yes.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Can we look at P3055, please.
1 This is tab 632.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, before the witness is shown this
3 document, perhaps the next question should have been what those goals
4 were. Because it could be interesting to know if this witness has any
5 independent recollection of those goals.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, it seems reasonable.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would ask the witness just to identify the
8 document, if it was the document what he spoke about.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: You may continue.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Susa, could you please look at this document. This is the
12 declaration on the political goals of the Republic of Serbian Krajina,
13 and it says here that it was adopted on the 18th of May, 1992. Could you
14 please tell us whether this is a document setting out the political goals
15 of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina?
16 A. Well, yes. We don't have to read the document but I will give
17 you the main points of the declaration.
18 Q. Go ahead.
19 A. The declaration boils down to a definitive assertion which people
20 perhaps didn't understand initially, and that is that all of our work,
21 our desires, our -- at joining Yugoslavia again should end. We said that
22 in an indirect but understandable way, saying that we will maintain
23 relations with the former Yugoslavia that are guided by common goals and
24 objectives. This is something that people perhaps didn't understand, but
25 to me - and I participated in the drafting of the declaration - it was
1 clear what the main elements were. Everything else there that is
2 contained in the declaration is of a declaratory nature and it's not so
4 Q. I think you already said that but that was my question: Did you
5 take part in the drafting of the declaration?
6 A. Yes, I did.
7 Q. Did anything in the declaration indicate that the goal of the
8 Republic of the Serbian Krajina was the creation of something that could
9 be described as Greater Serbia?
10 A. After the declaration and the political position that we found
11 ourselves in, we could have written whatever we wanted. But it was clear
12 that nothing would come of that goal, and I didn't really believe that it
13 existed anymore. I successively took part in all of the declarations
14 from the SBWS one to others, and we always emphasized that basic desire
15 to remain in Yugoslavia. However, with this declaration we definitely
16 abandoned that idea.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I did not ask to tender into
18 evidence document 1D3761. It is tab 638. It is amendment -- amendments
19 on the constitution of the RSK. It was shown to the witness. Amendments
20 9, 10, and 11. And I would tender it. I'm sorry for the inconveniences.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
22 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 1D3761 becomes Exhibit D225.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
24 Mr. Zivanovic, these are amendments to the constitution.
25 Amendments --
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: To the constitution of the RSK.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah. Should --
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The amendments number 9, 10, and 11.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Shouldn't we give them an L number?
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Rather than a --
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, the --
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- rather than a D number?
9 Madam Registrar, could you provide an L number?
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, the next L number will be L69 and
11 D225 remains available.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
14 Q. Mr. Susa, you took part in the talks on the Vance Plan. You
15 spoke about that yesterday. Do you recollect one of the elements of the
16 Vance Plan being the return of refugees?
17 A. Yes. Yes, that was one of the key elements of the Vance Plan.
18 Q. And how did you understand that part of the Vance Plan? Who was
19 supposed to come back and where?
20 A. All the people that had left their hearths, whatever the
21 circumstances, who had left their homes, mostly, and this was something
22 that was known, were fleeing from the destruction of war and all the ills
23 that war brought; thus, everyone.
24 Q. And do you remember that you gave statements to the media on
25 these matters?
1 A. Yes, I provided many statements to the media on this topic as
2 well, among others. I really don't know how many times I addressed the
4 Q. I'm going to show you a statement.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] This is 1D3645, tab 558.
6 Q. This is a statement, I think, given to the Novi Sad Dnevnik on
7 the 20th of March, 1992. It was less than a month after you were elected
8 into the government of the Republic of the Serbian Krajina.
9 A. Could we zoom in on the text.
10 Q. This is the text: "Krajina, Never Again in Croatia."
11 A. I saw that and I was afraid as soon as I saw the beginning.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, my records indicate that this has not
13 been added to the Defence's 65 ter exhibit list. Can that be confirmed?
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is 1D3645. It was on our Rule 65 ter list and
15 I think that it is on our list, too. Our list for this witness, too.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: I think you mentioned the tab number.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The tab number is 558.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I believe this is still subject to a
19 pending motion by the Defence, the third motion to amend its Rule 65 ter
20 list. And this -- I don't believe this was one that was brought up at
21 the beginning of this witness's testimony. This wasn't included in
22 Mr. Zivanovic's oral submissions.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I can double-check it and --
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: You'll let us know after --
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- and see after the break.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic. Thank you.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
3 Q. When it comes to the government of the Republic of Serbian
4 Krajina, did it deal with the return of refugees and displaced persons?
5 A. Yes, it did.
6 Q. Did it issue documents? Did it pass decisions or some other
7 enactments to that effect?
8 A. Yes, decisions were passed both by the government and the
9 assembly. The government issued decisions, the assembly issued
10 declarations. We spoke about that in the media.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up under
12 tab 561. This is an exhibit from the Prosecutor's 65 ter list, 1099.
13 [In English] No, no. [Interpretation] It was below that. Declaration.
14 [In English] The document on the top of the original. This is it.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Do we have an English translation of this
16 declaration? I only see a decision.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I believe that there is a translation, but if not
18 I'll withdraw the question. Thank you.
19 May we see L8, please. It is tab 596.
20 Q. [Interpretation] You already spoke about a document which was
21 issued by the assembly and we will not be looking at that; however, we
22 are going to look at a decision that was passed by the government. What
23 you see on the screen now, is that the decision in question? It was
24 issued on the 21st of April, 1992.
25 A. Yes, that's the decision.
1 Q. Could you please tell us whether refugees and displaced persons
2 returned in keeping with this decision?
3 A. Unfortunately, no.
4 Q. Why? Why did they not return in accordance with this decision?
5 A. Nobody prevented the refugees from returning. We encouraged
6 their return as much as we could. However, in conversations with the
7 people on the other side, we realised that they did not demonstrate any
8 wish to return for as long as we existed as an authority. In other
9 words, that they would wait for the Croatian authorities to be
10 re-established after which they would be willing to return to their
11 homes. On our side, we did our utmost to start the return of refugees
12 and displaced persons.
13 Q. Pursuant to this decision --
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] And can the original be zoomed in
15 just a little.
16 Q. In Article 1, it says that all those who wanted to return are
17 required to send a written request to the secretariat of the interior in
18 charge, depending on their previous place of residence. Were such
19 requests filed at all?
20 A. I really can't say that this did not happen, not even once,
21 because I don't know. In any case, the number of such applications was
22 not significant.
23 Q. This decision also envisages a possibility to ban certain people
24 from returning. Who could have been forbidden to return?
25 A. Only those for which there was evidence that they participated in
1 the commission of crimes until the moment it could be established for a
2 fact whether those crimes were committed or not in a legally binding
3 procedure. We didn't want to harm those people because otherwise they
4 would have had to come, be detained, and wait for the court decision to
5 become final. I believe that this was fair on our behalf. In respect of
6 the other side which arrested a lot of people and kept them detained for
7 a long time before it was finally established that they were innocent.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I see the clock.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you Mr. Zivanovic.
10 We'll take our first break, 30 minutes. We will be back at
11 11.00. Court adjourned.
12 [The witness stands down]
13 --- Recess taken at 10.29 a.m.
14 --- On resuming at 11.01 a.m.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, before the witness enters the
17 courtroom, I would ask the Trial Chamber to admit on our Rule 65 ter list
18 the document -- document 1D3645. This document was among the documents
19 filed with our third motion to amend our Rule 65 ter list.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: This is article that I tried to show to the
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, and I believe we -- we raised this in
25 our response to that motion. We object to the admission of this
1 document, which is an open source document, a publication that could have
2 been found by the Defence at any time in these proceedings. And I would
3 note that the Defence has met with this witness since at least
4 September 2013 and certainly could have been apprised of this open source
5 newspaper article well in advance of their case or at least by the
6 beginning of their case, and now we're several months into their case and
7 they're proposing to add it to the list and we oppose it on due diligence
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I believe that it is in the
10 interests of justice to admit this document and it is relevant for this
11 particular witness, actually. It is his statement to the media as to the
12 return of refugees.
13 [Trial Chamber confers]
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: The objection is overruled. The document can be
15 added to the 65 ter list and is admitted and marked.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, document 1D3645 will be
17 Exhibit D225.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
19 Yes, Mr. Zivanovic, sorry. Please proceed.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Susa, we started talking about your statement which you gave
22 to the media.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I would like to call up 1D3645
24 under tab 558. Can we zoom in on the original, please. Under the title:
25 "Krajina, Never Again In Croatia."
1 Q. Your words are quoted regarding the return of refugees. You will
2 find them in the first column towards the bottom.
3 A. Yes, I can see that.
4 Q. You say, inter alia, that:
5 "The return of Croats to Krajina is a normal process which we
6 will not try to stop in any way because we will not accept the policy of
7 citizens of the first and second class."
8 Did you ever give such a statement to this particular newspaper
9 or newspapers in general?
10 A. I have no reason to doubt that these are my words, because I did
11 give such statements.
12 Q. Could you please tell me whether this statement reflected the
13 position of the government and the authorities of the Republic of Serbian
14 Krajina at that time?
15 A. Yes, I conveyed the positions of my government.
16 Q. Do you happen to know what were the problems confronted by the
17 refugees who wanted to return to either of the sides?
18 A. The return on both sides was a painstaking process. There was
19 mistrust on both sides about the return of the other side. I have to say
20 that in principle we were in favour of a return and we would have done it
21 gladly, but there were no invitations to people to return and there were
22 no technical capabilities in place for our people to return to Croatia.
23 Most of the Croatian assets in Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem,
24 including the largest part of Krajina that I was familiar with, was
25 protected and preserved. That was my priority.
1 Q. Can you tell us a bit more specifically about that problem;
2 namely, that there were no invitations to people to return and that
3 technical capabilities were lacking for the return of people to Croatia?
4 A. At the same time as we were making decisions and declarations and
5 appealing to Croats to return to their homes via mass media, there were
6 no similar invitations from the other side to Serbs to return, at this
7 time, only to the area of Western Slavonia. And the whole tragedy is
8 that such invitations were not made, and even if they had been made, they
9 could not have been taken up because numerous settlements and houses had
10 already been burned.
11 Q. Did you take part in any discussions with international
12 representatives or the Croatian side about this issue of having resettled
13 persons returned?
14 A. Yes, I participated on a number of occasions in talks with
15 representatives of the international community. More specifically, the
16 international community organised discussions between us and the Croatian
17 side and there was a period in which these talks were held very
19 Q. What was the reason why Croat refugees did not return to their
20 homes in Ilok and that area of the Republic of Serbian Krajina?
21 MR. OLMSTED: Objection, Your Honours. How would the witness
22 know that? At the very least, there has to be some foundation laid so we
23 can understand what the basis of his answer would be.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: As far as I see, the witness said that he
25 participated in discussions between -- with the Croatian side about
1 the -- about the resettled person -- about the persons returns. It was
2 my previous question and witness answer. And I asked him if he knows
3 anything about the one specific local -- area, about Ilok, and where he
4 testified that he was one of the government representatives for such
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, Mr. Zivanovic is therefore
8 missing a number of questions before he can get to the question that he
9 asked. He's simply not laying the foundation and, I suggest, leading the
10 witness right to the point he's trying to make.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I believe that the previous answers of the
12 witness is about Ilok and about -- and his last answers gave enough of a
13 foundation for this question.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: I agree, Mr. Zivanovic. The objection is
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
17 Q. Do you want me to repeat the question?
18 A. No need. I understand both you and the Prosecutor. If you mean
19 whether I talked directly to Croats who wanted to return to Ilok, that
20 did not happen. But through their representatives who talked to us under
21 the aegis of the United Nations, I understood that they were insisting at
22 all costs that the organs of Croatian authorities be established first,
23 and I understood it as a precondition for their return set by them.
24 Q. When you say that they insisted on the establishment of Croatian
25 authorities, you mean which territory?
1 A. The area I know best and the one that's closest to me is
2 Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. The Republic of Serbian Krajina was
3 not covered so extensively in all its parts in the negotiations, so I
4 can't know what happened exactly in Glina, Banja, Kordun, Lika, or
5 Dalmatia, but I know very well what was going on in Slavonia, Baranja,
6 and Western Srem.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I would tender the document 1D3645
8 into evidence.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, that's the document that was
11 admitted at the start of this session --
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Oh, yeah. Sorry.
13 THE REGISTRAR: -- and added to the 65 ter list as D225.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
16 Q. Mr. Susa, I will now go back to a document that I was not able to
17 show you earlier, but first of all, I have a question. Do you remember
18 during your tenure on that commission for Ilok, for short, do you
19 remember whether you received any requests from the local commune of
21 A. Yes, I received one request from Mohovo.
22 Q. What was this request about, if you remember, before I show you
23 the document?
24 A. I must tell you straight away why I remember it, because it was
25 the only local commune that came directly to me for advice and for
1 consultation about the situation in that local commune, so it's not
2 difficult to remember. From earlier, I knew two of the three members of
3 that small delegation that came to Ilok to present their problem.
4 Mohovo, and I knew that from before, was a mixed community of Hungarians,
5 Ukrainians, Ruthenians, and Serbs, and some refugees had also temporarily
6 settled there under the supervision of the army. In and of itself that
7 was not a problem. It wouldn't have been a problem if it hadn't
8 disrupted not only interethnic but also interpersonal relations. So
9 there we had a problem not only between Serbs and Croats but between
10 everybody. And the army contributed to it by encouraging the moving out
11 of Croats and all the others, whereas the local residents of Mohovo
12 wanted to stop it.
13 I understood that they had first addressed the army, asking them
14 for protection and for diffusion of tensions, but it didn't happen. In
15 that village before the JNA came, there were ethnic Croats who had
16 received weapons and boasted about it, and now they were denying they had
17 weapons. These people were committed to preserving their little village,
18 and they asked me what I thought about it - "I," meaning the government
19 of SBWS - whether I was able to mediate in their relations with the army,
20 and whether there was a way to give them full control over resolving the
21 problems in the village.
22 I did that and within the next few days I invited them again.
23 There was no post office working at that time, and I told them the
24 position of the government; namely, that we do not encourage any
25 emigration, that all places within SBWS were equal. I had spoken to the
1 army which promised me that all the steps would be taken to stabilise the
2 situation, and in that way I kind of agreed with them that they are the
3 best placed to resolve the issues in their village.
4 These people were a tight-knit community. They were not only
5 friends but they were also related to each other. So that's what I told
6 them and, of course, I did not attach any strings to it.
7 Q. Were you aware at that time of the position of the army - that is
8 to say, a specific command of the JNA - regarding the ethnic composition
9 or possibly a change of the ethnic picture of the population in that area
10 of Ilok and its surroundings?
11 A. To be quite truthful, I cannot say that anyone told me directly
12 that they were in favour of people moving out. However, from their
13 internal documents I realised that they were very interested and very
14 involved in it, and they were exchanging reports between them, reports
15 saying how many people moved in or out and what activities needed to be
16 carried out to get people to move out in even greater numbers and how to
17 change the ethnic structure of particular places.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we now look at P1715.
19 That's tab 679.
20 Q. It's a report from a meeting held on 21st February 1992. It was
21 held, as you see, in Mirkovci, and we see who was present at the meeting
22 including the representatives of local authorities. Did you or any
23 member of the government or any member of that commission get the
24 invitation to this meeting, this meeting between local authorities and
25 the military?
1 A. If we had been invited, we would have come. We always did. But
2 I don't see any of us here, so I can only conclude that we were not
4 Q. We don't see the names of all the people who attended. We only
5 see various job titles.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] If we can look at the bottom of
7 the page.
8 Q. We see that the meeting was chaired by Corps Commander
9 General Delic, which seems to indicate that he was also present. I'm
10 interested in item 5 (a). It says the agency for civilian affairs,
11 meaning a member of the JNA. It says that at the level of the government
12 of SBWS, measures need to be taken to resolve the issue of settling
13 currently uninhabited places, Nijemci, Apsevci, et cetera, as soon as
14 possible, and that in places that are settled, the ethnic structure
15 should be changed more efficiently. They are suggesting that the
16 government should do this.
17 Has such a request ever been made of the government to change the
18 ethnic structure more efficiently?
19 A. They never suggested anything of the sort to us. And if they
20 had, we wouldn't have accepted. Mr. Delic cannot speak on behalf of the
21 government or suggest anything to the government because he is not a
23 Q. Now I'm not talking about the government but about some members
24 of the army. Did they hold such a view?
25 A. Well, obviously. It's written here. That's what I was talking
1 about. There are many such documents, including at lower levels.
2 Q. Mr. Susa, you spoke earlier about the judiciary of Slavonia,
3 Baranja, and Western Srem and later you yourself were a minister of
4 justice in the government of the Republic of Serbian Krajina. First
5 we'll discuss Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem. What were the
6 competencies of the judiciary at the time when the Yugoslav People's Army
7 with their military commands and staffs were present there?
8 A. Our jurisdiction was narrowed down considerably. The army had
9 powers according to the legislation that governed immediate threat of
10 war. So they were in charge of taking pre-investigating, investigating,
11 and prosecuting measures in a large number of cases. We did not
12 interfere, but we also noticed that a number of cases was also ending up
13 before our courts. So we concluded that there must be some instruction
14 from military commands that the civilian police or military police under
15 their command should submit some cases to our judiciary and those were,
16 as a rule, less serious crimes, and we prosecuted them. This continued
17 until the JNA withdrew. After that, our courts were showered by a great
18 number of cases that had previously been handled by the military
19 judiciary, and that included everything, aggravated robberies, thefts,
20 killings, murders, et cetera, and we started dealing with this
22 Q. You mentioned the immediate threat of war. Do you perhaps
23 remember when the immediate threat of war was declared?
24 A. The immediate threat of war was declared in October 1991, if I'm
25 not mistaken. It was published in the Official Gazette of the SFRY. I
1 think that it went into effect on the 18th of October.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we please look at P2932.
3 This is tab 711.
4 Q. Could you please look at the first document published in this
5 issue of this Official Gazette. It states that the immediate threat of
6 war was established on the 1st of October.
7 A. Yes, that is correct, but it goes into effect on the day it is
8 published in the Official Gazette.
9 Q. I'm interested in another thing. You said that military organs
10 had certain judicial responsibilities when imminent danger of war was
11 declared. So what I'm interested in is: Did you know about this? Did
12 you have an opportunity to see the document or to hear of it?
13 A. Well, we received all the Official Gazettes. They were
14 dispatched to all the official organs that were dealing with state,
15 social affairs. They were also dispatched to all work organisations. So
16 it was an obligation to know all of this.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at 1D2481, tab 488.
18 Q. This is a draft record from a session of the Presidency of the
19 SFRY of the 5th of October, 1991.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at the next page,
22 Q. It states here that the order has been given --
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the counsel please tell us where he's
24 reading from.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
1 Q. Could you please tell us --
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic --
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
4 Q. -- if this order --
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- the interpreters are asking you whether you
6 could tell them where you're reading from.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
8 Q. Perhaps we can read the first paragraph of the original, where it
9 says that: At the proposal of the Federal Secretariat for National
10 Defence and with consultation with members of the SFRY Presidency, the
11 SFRY Presidency, without holding a session, issued the order on the
12 territorial jurisdiction of first-degree military courts and military
13 prosecutor's offices at military commands. And that the order also
14 determines the competencies of military courts in the event of an
15 imminent threat of war.
16 What I would like to know is if you know whether this order that
17 had to do with competencies of military courts in the event of an
18 imminent threat of war was applied in the territory of Slavonia, Baranja,
19 and Western Srem as of October 1991?
20 A. Yes, it was.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, how could he -- the witness answer
22 that question without seeing the order, if there was one. But I guess he
23 already answered.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Unfortunately, we don't have the order but we
25 have the minutes from this -- from the session of this organ of the
1 former Yugoslavia. And in many cases the minutes from these organs were
2 admitted into evidence.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, the issue is foundation. There
5 is no foundation that this witness attended this meeting. We have no
6 idea what were the contents of this order. So for this witness to
7 testify that this order was, in fact, adopted or implemented, he simply
8 cannot -- it would be speculation without further foundation.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, I didn't ask the witness whether he was
10 present at the session of the Presidency of SFRY, but I just ask him
11 whether he knows that the jurisdiction of the military courts were
12 implemented in the SBWS during the immediate threat of war.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: And did you ask whether there was -- there was --
14 there had been issued the order you were referring to? Mr. Olmsted's
15 first -- yes, go ahead.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, no, no. My question is whether this
17 jurisdiction of the military courts as presented in this document was
18 implemented on the territory of the SBWS.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
20 MR. OLMSTED: And, again, Your Honours, that goes back to my
21 question: As we don't know what the order is, it doesn't -- the document
22 doesn't mention anything about the SBWS, so the witness simply cannot
23 answer these questions without speculating.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is -- it is stated here that the order also
25 determines the competencies of military courts in the event of an
1 immediate threat of war. It is a -- this paragraph, the second -- the
2 second sentence in this paragraph.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: I agree, Mr. Zivanovic.
4 So the witness should answer that question, whether he knows
5 whether this is implemented in a certain territory which you may or
6 may -- which you may define.
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I define -- I asked about the territory of the
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Then put a clear question to the witness.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
11 Q. Mr. Susa, are you able to tell us whether starting from
12 October 1991, the military courts' competencies applied in the SBWS in
13 the event of immediate threat of war?
14 A. Well, I will be very co-operative and perhaps I would answer: If
15 I was asked whether I ever saw such an order, I can say I did not. But
16 on the other hand, it is quite clear that military judicial organs
17 behaved in such a way that it could be easily concluded that such an
18 order existed, and it's not possible to avoid the determination of the
19 Presidency of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia by the military
20 organs. They had to apply that in practice. As to what form and under
21 what orders, that is something that I don't know.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I would tender this document into
24 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution objects. The
25 witness's last answer clearly establishes that he is not aware of any
1 such order. He can only presume based upon what he's observing on the
2 ground that maybe such an order was issued, but with regard to this
3 document, he knows nothing about an order that was issued.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, but the witness said that he never saw --
5 never seen this order, not that he doesn't know anything about this
7 [Trial Chamber confers]
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: The objection is overruled. The document is
9 admitted and marked.
10 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 1D2481 will be Exhibit D226.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Microphone not activated].
13 Q. [Interpretation] Are you able to tell us until the military
14 courts had the competencies to prosecute the crimes committed in the
15 territory of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, until what time?
16 A. Throughout the whole period until the army withdrew and until
17 this measure about the declaration of an imminent threat of war was no
18 longer valid.
19 Q. Do you remember when the immediate threat of war ceased to be
21 A. It was sometime in May or June 1992. There is also a decision on
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at P181. This is
24 tab 689.
25 Q. Could you tell us, on the basis of this, when the decision on the
1 existence of an immediate threat of war was rendered null and void?
2 A. Again, you can see the date when it went into effect. That's the
3 date at the top, the 22nd.
4 Q. Did you hear about an incident in Lovas at the so-called
5 minefield where there were a number of Croat inhabitants of Lovas?
6 A. Yes, I did hear of the incident.
7 Q. Do you know who carried out an investigation into this incident?
8 A. In the beginning it was the military police that conducted the
9 first actions regarding this investigation, and then later it was handed
10 over to the military prosecutor's office.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: May we see please 1D157. It is tab 4.
12 Q. [Interpretation] This is a statement by one of the commanders of
13 one of the units that was deployed in Lovas. All I would like to know is
14 if you are aware --
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] I think this is on the second
16 page. Can we look at the second page of the original, please.
17 Q. Where the units that took part in this are mentioned and where
18 the person who signed the document reports that he informed the
19 authorised bodies about the incident - i.e., the commander of the
20 Territorial Defence in Serbia, General Djokic - and that he also informed
21 the organs of the 1st Guards Division where the incident occurred. What
22 I would like to know is whether the army ever informed you about this
23 incident, i.e., the judicial organs of Slavonia, Baranja, and
24 Western Srem or later the Republic of Serbian Krajina, so that they could
25 take up the case and prosecute it?
1 A. This case was never passed to us for further processing.
2 Q. And can you tell me if it was the 1st Guards Division that was
3 responsible for prosecuting the incident where the incident took place
4 and which reports to the republican staff of the TO of Serbia?
5 A. He addressed the organs properly and he spoke the truth. In the
6 last sentence he says that he informed the authorised person that the
7 investigation is being carried out by organs of the 1st Guards Division,
8 and that was within their competence to do so.
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Let's we go back to the first
10 page, please, in the same document.
11 Q. You will see in the third paragraph from the bottom of the page.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] This will be the fourth paragraph
13 from the bottom of the page in the English translation -- or, rather, the
14 fourth and the fifth.
15 Q. It says that: From the 2nd Motorised Brigade command, it was
16 suggested that the above incident falls within the competencies of the
17 security organ and the 1st Guards Brigade and that it was not my
18 responsibility because it took place in the zone of responsibility of the
19 2nd Motorised Brigade.
20 Does that tally with what you knew about the competencies for
21 such crimes?
22 A. I can't tell you what division, what brigade, because those
23 things mean nothing to me. However, in principle it was the JNA that was
24 responsible and how they distributed responsibilities and competencies
25 among themselves, I wouldn't be able to tell you because I don't know.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I would tender this document into
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
4 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 1D157 will be Exhibit D227.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
6 Q. Do you know whether the judiciary bodies were informed about a
7 crime which happened sometime in November 1991 in Dalj mountains -- in
8 Dalj, as a matter of fact. Apparently a number of Hungarians were killed
9 there on that occasion.
10 A. No, we were never informed about that.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would refer to P2093. It should not be
12 broadcasted. And it is at paragraph 76 and -- 76 of this document.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Do we have a tab?
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is tab -- sorry, it is tab --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: 36?
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, Your Honours.
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I cannot find the tab. I'm sorry.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Just one moment, please.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Oh, tab -- it is tab 648.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Now, next question is: Can it be shown to the
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: We --
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I think that we --
1 MR. OLMSTED: No, Your Honours, not under your guide-lines.
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Anyway, I could -- I could state for -- I could
3 put the question to the witness from this document and it is just for
4 your reference --
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Go ahead. Yes.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
7 Q. In January 1992, military bodies conducted an investigation about
8 the crimes which had occurred in Dalj mountains. Do you know anything
9 about that?
10 A. You're asking me whether I know anything about that?
11 Q. Yes. You, the government, the judiciary bodies, did you know
13 A. No, I didn't know anything about that.
14 Q. Did you receive any information about that event from military
15 bodies? And when I say "you," I mean you, the government, the judiciary
16 bodies of the Republic of Serbian Krajina? Did you receive any
17 subsequent information about that?
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Asked and answered.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: I expected your objection.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Okay.
22 Q. [Interpretation] Are you familiar with the Dusan Boljevic case?
23 A. Yes, I am.
24 Q. Can you just briefly tell us what happened? Who was in charge of
25 the proceedings in that case?
1 A. A number of killings happened in Baranja. It was the military
2 investigation bodies that were in charge of the first phase of the
3 proceedings. The file was in the hands of the military investigating
4 judge in Belgrade until the moment the military withdrew, and then the
5 military judiciary bodies declared themselves incompetent and returned
6 the case to us. We conducted the proceedings at the higher court in
7 Beli Manastir. We convicted Mr. Boljevic to the maximum prison penalty
8 of 20 years.
9 Q. What happened to him after that?
10 A. I don't know. I thought that he was serving his sentence, but
11 then I heard that he had died.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: May we see, please, 1D1034.
11 Page 12097 redacted.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, it is confidential. Sorry, I --
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Should we go into private session or?
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It -- I'll not discuss anymore this particular
22 document, and this part might be redacted.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: So we remove it from the screen?
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Yes, please.
25 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
2 Q. I interrupted you. I apologise for that. You were talking about
3 the military judiciary bodies in the Republic of Serbian Krajina from the
4 moment the republic was set up. Were military courts ever set up?
5 A. No, never in a legal way. For a short period of time, when I was
6 no longer minister of justice, they were indeed set up. But still they
7 couldn't take off the ground. They were never operational. Why?
8 Because the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Police did not adhere
9 to the provisions of the law, according to which the judges of the
10 military courts and military prosecutors had to be appointed by the
11 president. They started doing it themselves, bypassing the authorities
12 of the president of Republic of Serbian Krajina. That's how they
13 compounded the whole situation and made the whole process unlawful.
14 Q. Does that mean that some illegal military courts, as it were,
15 were set up?
16 A. They were set up in an unlawful way. Defence counsels appealed
17 against their judgements. And even if those judgements were
18 well-grounded, they had to be overturned on formal and legal grounds.
19 Q. Mr. Susa, do you remember if you had any written correspondence
20 with Mr. Thornberry?
21 A. Yes. I believe that we exchanged several written documents. I
22 don't know what specifically do you have in mind.
23 Q. Did Mr. Thornberry ever address you with regard to the
24 confiscation of Croatian property in the Republic of Serbian Krajina? Do
25 you remember that?
1 A. Yes, he did do that. When that letter of his or that inquiry was
2 drafted, it was not based on proper information from his associates. We
3 never applied any measures in respect of the -- a decision. We never
4 confiscated any property. This could be done only by a court, and I
5 informed Mr. Thornberry about that in a letter. I believe that he took
6 it under advisement, and after that he didn't have any inquiries with
7 this regard.
8 Q. Can you tell us what he meant by "confiscation"?
9 A. I just wanted to say something about that. When his associates
10 told him that we had a temporary hold of other people's property, they
11 interpreted that as a permanent situation and they erroneously concluded
12 that we were confiscating Croatian property and giving it to somebody
13 else for their use. And that was not correct because on the other hand
14 we received complaints from the Serbs who were in temporary possession of
15 that property. We strictly paid attention to that, and we did not want
16 the status of ownership and the title and deed to ever be changed.
17 Q. Did you explain that, either orally or in writing, to
18 Mr. Thornberry and his associates?
19 A. As far as I remember, I sent my letter directly to
20 Mr. Cedric Thornberry. I explained everything to him and it was
22 Q. After that, did he additionally address you on this issue? Did
23 he ask for additional information?
24 A. No, no.
25 Q. While you were minister of justice in the government of the RSK
1 and even in -- earlier in the government of SBWS, did you have any
2 meetings with international representatives where they perhaps complained
3 against certain acts of the judiciary or some specific cases? Did they
4 ever say that the judiciary was not acting properly, failing to prosecute
5 perpetrators of crimes against non-Serbs?
6 A. They never addressed me directly. Whether they talked to the
7 judges in the supreme court, I don't know and the judges didn't tell me.
8 Q. You spoke about certain problems that the judiciary faced during
9 the time they were being established in October 1991. What happened with
10 the courts that, before the beginning of the conflict until July 1991,
11 existed and operated in the territory of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western
13 A. Before that in this part of the Croatia, there were two courts:
14 The municipal court in Beli Manastir and the district court. And there
15 were prosecutors' offices, municipal and district one. They were both
16 under the district court in Osijek.
17 Q. What happened with these institutions and the personnel,
18 including judges, when the war began? For instance, the court in
19 Beli Manastir and the court in Vukovar.
20 A. The municipal court in Beli Manastir and the prosecutor's office
21 in Beli Manastir remained intact. The municipal court in Vukovar and the
22 municipal prosecutor's office in Vukovar fell apart completely.
23 A number of judges were arrested by the Croatian authorities,
24 others were expelled. Later, the courthouse was demolished and we had to
25 rebuild everything from scratch.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I see the time.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic. Indeed, we take the
3 second break. 30 minutes. We'll be back at 12.45. Court adjourned.
4 [The witness stands down]
5 --- Recess taken at 12.15 p.m.
6 --- On resuming at 12.46 p.m.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, I'm told that you have 15 minutes
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Yes, Your Honour, and I respectfully ask
10 for 15 minutes more to complete my cross-examination.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: 15 minutes --
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: 15 minutes --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- more?
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- plus 15 minutes. It is actually 30 minutes --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. If we can limit it to that, that's not a
16 big problem.
17 [The witness takes the stand]
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And, Your Honours, I will use one document. It
19 is actually not on our list, Rule 65 ter list, but it is the extract of
20 the document already admitted into evidence. It is P1597, the tab number
21 572. These are minutes from the Assembly of RSK from 20 of April, 1993,
22 and some parts of this documents have been translated and admitted into
23 evidence and we translated one page for the purpose to show to this
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: So you added a one-page translation?
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes. Correct.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: If there is no objection from the other side.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Well, this is the first I heard about this,
4 Your Honour, so I don't even know what the document is about. And maybe
5 the witness shouldn't either.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: As I said, it is -- this is the minutes from the
7 Assembly of the RSK held on 20 of April, 1993, and this particular page
8 was actually nomination -- election of the government of
9 Djordje Bjegovic, of the new government, and it indicates when the
10 witness ceased to be a minister of justice in the RSK government.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: And how come the Prosecution doesn't know about
12 this in advance? It's a question I'd -- for you, Mr. Zivanovic,
13 because --
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- the Prosecution says, "I don't know in
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: We put it on our list for this witness. It is,
18 as I said, tab 572, and we --
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: -- put the translation of the document on the
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: No, sorry, it is -- sorry, sorry. It is 1597
24 from the Prosecution Rule 65 ter list. 1597.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'm sorry. I'm at a loss. I don't
1 know what is at issue here. If 1597 is on the Defence's list for this
2 witness, is this a new page that wasn't previously disclosed to the
3 Prosecution? I just don't know. I'm sorry.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: As I understand it, Mr. Olmsted, it's a
5 Prosecution exhibit that had a partial translation.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Yes.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: And from that same exhibit, the Defence adds the
8 translation of an additional page.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Okay. That's sort of how I understood it. But
10 then my question is where is this additional page? Because I don't think
11 I've seen it.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: The additional page is 1D3762. It is translation
13 of that page. And it is on our list.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: And that's on your list. Okay. Then I think we
15 can move forward. Isn't it, Mr. Olmsted?
16 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. I still have not seen the page
17 but at this stage let's go forward.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
19 Please proceed, Mr. Zivanovic.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
21 Q. Mr. Susa, can you tell us something about the kind of relations
22 that existed on the one hand between the Ministry of Justice of the RSK
23 and the foreign ministry on the other hand?
24 A. The relations were very decent at first. However, they were
25 disrupted very quickly because we came up with some new demands and new
1 proposals for the way to work. In my first trips to the area of Knin, I
2 had talks with the representatives of the judiciary and I noticed major
3 problems in their operation, and I demanded that they change pronto. The
4 greatest problem was with the operation of the prisons in Glina and in
5 Knin, which held a large number of people without any accompanying
6 documents. Our conclusion was that these people were held there without
7 any investigating judge having made the appropriate ruling to put them in
8 remand, and the police had not completed their pre-investigation work.
9 I sent a letter to the foreign ministry saying that, within three
10 days, we will wait for criminal complaints to see if these people should
11 really be in remand or not. And if we don't receive them, all these
12 people will after three days be released. This caused a great
13 dissatisfaction. The foreign ministry asked us to change the legal
14 provision which stipulated that the maximum detention by the police be
15 extended from three days to 30 days. I did not accept that, and tensions
16 began to rise within the ministry and to shift to the interpersonal
17 level, so the relations between me and Milan Martic became increasingly
19 Q. Did the judiciary, at their meetings or in some other form, point
20 out their problems with the Ministry of the Interior?
21 A. Yes, at least once a week we had meetings of the collegium that
22 included representatives of the judiciary, and we discussed various
23 problems such as lack of personnel and resources. But they also pointed
24 out very sloppily drafted criminal complaints that gave no proper basis
25 for work, and I asked that this be changed in the period that followed.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at 1D2595. That's
2 tab 642.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, I'm checking right now to see whether
4 this is one that's been admitted onto their 65 ter exhibit list. Perhaps
5 Defence counsel can help me out.
6 Is this one of the ones that you raised at the beginning of this
7 witness's testimony, or is this one that there is still a pending motion?
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Frankly, I don't recall.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed, Mr. Zivanovic.
10 Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, does that mean you're admitting it
12 onto their 65 ter list, or should he proceed to a different document or
13 subject matter?
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: I didn't admit anything. Mr. Zivanovic asked to
15 have it on the screen, but that's not an admission to the 65 ter list
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Mr. President. It's my understanding for the
20 procedure for direct examination that before a document can be used with
21 a witness, it should be on their 65 ter exhibit list. That was the
22 practice we followed in the Prosecution's case in chief.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I cannot say -- oh, sorry.
24 [Trial Chamber confers]
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: So are the parties expecting us to find out
1 whether it's on the list or not?
2 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I am just informed that this
3 document is on our third amended Rule 65 ter list, and I didn't ask the
4 Chamber to admit it on the list but now I would ask if it is possible.
5 It is the subject of the third motion for amended our Rule 65 ter list.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Which we didn't deal with yet, right?
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Correct.
8 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Could you repeat the 65 ter number,
10 Mr. Zivanovic? There seems to be a little problem.
11 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is 1D2595.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: 1D25 --
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: 2595, sorry.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: 1D2595.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: 95.
16 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: So now you are asking to admit it to your exhibit
18 list, Mr. -- to your 65 ter list, Mr. Zivanovic?
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yeah.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: And what is the Prosecution's position now?
21 MR. OLMSTED: The Prosecution's position is as stated in its
22 response to that motion, which is that it opposed its admission because
23 the Defence have failed to show any due diligence with regard to this
24 document. We have already dealt with one such document. And the same
25 reasoning on the Prosecution part applies, which is this witness was
1 known to the Defence for a long time, this document is not shown to be
2 something that was only recently discovered by the Defence.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: We are losing a lot of time with this,
4 Mr. Zivanovic.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I'll not show this document to the
6 evidence, but I stay behind our motion to -- that this document should be
7 admitted into -- should be admitted on our Rule 65 ter list as said in
8 our motion and in our reply.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, if you don't use it with this witness, that
10 takes the urgency away and we can await the decision on your third
11 motion, no?
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would prefer if it could be decided now because
13 this document is relevant for this witness and we indicated in our
14 Rule 65 ter motion on our list that it is -- it had to be used with this
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, yes, but now you say you will not use it.
17 Or am I wrong? You say you will not use it with this witness.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: My intention was to use it.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And I would use it.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: The problem is, A, we are losing time; and B, you
22 asked to admit it here and now but we don't have the arguments from both
23 sides, the arguments being in the motion and in the response.
24 MR. ZIVANOVIC: From our side, I just would add that this
25 particular document is relevant because it indicates about the matter
1 that the witness mentioned right now about the relationship between the
2 Ministry of Justice and Ministry of the Interior of RSK, and this
3 document clearly indicates the nature of their problem.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well, Mr. Zivanovic, for the moment we will not
5 admit the decision to your 65 ter list, but this decision is without
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Okay.
8 Q. [Interpretation] Mr. Susa, we are going to move to a different
9 subject. You were talking about your opposition to the setting up of
10 military courts in the Republic of the Serbian Krajina. Do you remember
11 if you talked about this publicly in the media?
12 A. I talked about this at government meetings in direct
13 communication with the defence ministry and Ministry of the Interior as
14 well as in the media.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] Could we look at document 1513
16 from the Prosecution's list. It's tab 582.
17 Q. This is a text that appeared in the press. We can see that the
18 date is the 24th of February.
19 A. I only see the text in English.
20 Q. Yes, in English. That is correct. It does not only refer to you
21 and the question of military courts. I am going to read a short part of
22 it that links back to your statement.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] It's on page 2 of the text.
24 Q. I will read it in English and then you will get a translation.
25 It's the first paragraph here that we see.
1 [In English] "And just when it was expected that this would reap
2 results and prevent further robberies, Minister of Justice Vojin Susa
3 wrote a letter in which he accused the army of creating a 'parallel
4 military legal system' that was in contradiction with the regulations of
5 the president of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, Goran Hadzic, which say
6 that in conditions of a state of war, all military legal matters are to
7 be dealt with by civil courts. This was justified by the fact that the
8 military legal system is not regulated by appropriate laws."
9 [Interpretation] Do you remember giving a statement like this to
10 the media?
11 A. Yes, I remember giving it, because the background data is
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, I would tender this document into
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
16 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 1513 will be Exhibit D229.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
18 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
19 Q. Mr. Susa, while you were the justice minister and generally, did
20 you command any military or police unit or generally any other armed
22 A. Those were not my competencies and I did not have any desire to
23 do anything like that.
24 Q. I'm going to show you a document of the same date as this
25 statement that I have just shown you.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation] This is tab 668. The document is
2 from the Prosecutor's list, the 65 ter list. It's document 6540.
3 Q. This is -- I don't even know what this is. Is it a report or
4 something similar, sent by the commander of the Slavonia Baranja Corps,
5 Colonel Sladojevic? I don't see to whom the document was sent. Could
6 you please look at what is said in the first paragraph of the document;
7 namely, that the Red Berets, currently the special unit, I don't know
8 what A/A means, that was established by order of the president of the
9 republic, Goran Hadzic, is currently in Ilok and under the command of the
10 minister of justice.
11 Could you please tell us if you were aware that Goran Hadzic had
12 formed a special unit, either by the name of Red Berets or some other
13 name, that is being referred to here in this document?
14 A. I was not aware that he formed any kind of unit.
15 Q. And you said that you did not command any units. Are you able to
16 explain, do you know how you're -- you're referred to here, not by name
17 but by your function, as being in command of a unit?
18 A. Well, I think 100 per cent here they mean me, and the
19 continuation of this information could have been found in the daily
20 Politika signed by General Mileta Novakovic where all of this is
21 thoroughly dealt with and it's even said which day I did a review of the
22 unit. So the resolution of this situation was quite unexpected because
23 at the time when I was allegedly reviewing the unit, I had already been
24 in Benkovac for two days. Something that Mr. Zecevic, the
25 prime minister, and three other ministers were aware of. Those three or
1 four ministers were actually with me at the time at the hotel in
2 Benkovac. I stated all of this before the government and then it became
3 clear that all of this was a provocation directed primarily at
4 Goran Hadzic. And the following day, a denial was published in the
5 Politika daily where General Novakovic admitted that he had received
6 inaccurate information from the field.
7 Q. And do you know how this misinformation came about, about
8 Goran Hadzic forming this unit and you being in command of that unit and
9 that you had reviewed the unit?
10 A. Perhaps Mr. Sladojevic really wanted to find out what sort of a
11 unit it was. I mean, he could have asked me. I knew. In the Pajzos
12 zone, which is in the immediate vicinity of Ilok, as early as 1991 there
13 was a Red Beret unit stationed there had which had been founded by the
14 state security of Serbia. This was a unit that had top equipment in
15 order to be able to survey the terrain in depth. They did not carry out
16 any military activities. They were concealed there. And at the same
17 time, they were guarding a capital facility from the time of
18 President Tito. This was a hunting villa or lodge. This is where they
19 were staying and they were staying there when this article was published.
20 Later, just like all the other units that had come from Serbia, it was
21 withdrawn and it returned to Serbia.
22 Q. Mr. Susa, please tell us how long you stayed at the post of
23 justice minister in the Republic of the Serbian Krajina?
24 A. Until the assembly session in Okucani. That is when I accepted
25 the end of my function with a dose of relief.
1 Q. And do you remember who was elected justice -- as justice
2 minister in the government of the Serbian Republic of the Krajina?
3 A. Yes, I remember. That was my learned colleague,
4 Mr. Radomir Kuzet. He was a lawyer.
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Can we see please 1D3762.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, could we have a date on the record
7 for that assembly session?
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
9 Q. Can you remember the date or approximate date when this assembly
10 session was held?
11 A. I think it was held sometime around the 20th of May, 1993.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Since we have this whole document on our list, I
13 will show to the witness the first page just for the date, to clarify the
14 date of this session. It is tab 572, Exhibit 1597 from the Prosecution
16 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I accept that it was this date. It
17 was the first and last assembly meeting that was held in Okucani in any
18 case. There were no others before it or after.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: [Interpretation]
20 Q. Could you please tell us the date, then, for the transcript?
21 A. It was the 20th of April, 1993.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: And may we see 1D3762.
23 Q. [Interpretation] I'm going to show you an excerpt from the record
24 of the meeting that is translated. This is the address by
25 Djordje Bjegovic. Could you please tell us what post he was given at
1 that assembly?
2 A. Until then he was a minister in Mr. Zecevic's government, just
3 like myself, and now he became the prime minister designate of the new
4 government. And then after this assembly session, he became the
5 prime minister.
6 Q. And can you see here who was suggested as the minister of justice
7 and administration?
8 A. As I said, it was Mr. Radomir Kuzet.
9 Q. Mr. Susa, thank you very much. I have no further questions for
11 A. Thank you.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Zivanovic.
13 Mr. Olmsted, are you ready for cross?
14 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. I do have -- before I begin,
15 I've made copies of the witness's 1998 statement that have the paragraphs
16 numbered, because I might be referring to some of the paragraphs and it
17 will be easier, I think, for us to deal with them in that manner.
18 I have English copies for Your Honours, and I have a B/C/S
19 version for Defence counsel and for the witness.
20 And, Your Honours, there is one more statement. Just for the
21 witness's sake, I'd like to give him a copy of his 2014 statement just in
22 case we need to reference it.
23 THE INTERPRETER: Could the interpreters also be provided with a
24 statement that has paragraphs numbered? It would be of assistance.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Would the interpreters be all right with an English
2 THE INTERPRETER: Yes, thank you.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Has everything been distributed, Mr. Olmsted?
4 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Mr. President, I believe so.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you. And I'll begin.
7 Cross-examination by Mr. Olmsted:
8 Q. Mr. Susa, good afternoon.
9 A. Good afternoon.
10 Q. Since Defence counsel touched on the issue the Red Berets, I'll
11 begin there. You've testified that you were familiar with the unit the
12 Red Berets that was sent to the Ilok area by DB Serbia in 1991. You were
13 also aware, weren't you, that this Red Beret unit, some of its members
14 were committing crimes in Western Srem, in particular against the
15 non-Serb population?
16 A. If we are talking about one and the same unit of Red Berets which
17 I touched upon in the examination-in-chief, that unit did not participate
18 in any combat around Ilok at all.
19 Q. Sir, I'm not talking about combat. I'm talking about crimes.
20 That while they were in the area of Ilok, they were engaged in bad
21 behaviour, and in particular they were threatening the remaining non-Serb
23 A. I apologise. I would need official information to that effect,
24 which I don't have. The judiciary bodies never informed me of any
25 proceedings that may have been instigated against them.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 6692. This is tab 180.
2 Q. And what you are about to see Mr. Susa is a 27 January 1993
3 UNPROFOR weekly situation assessment, and if I can draw your attention
4 to -- well, actually, I don't know if we have a B/C/S version of this so
5 I'll have to read it to you.
6 But under item 3, it reports that the Ilok area is under the
7 control of the Red Berets from Bapska and that there are reports about
8 threats towards Croats in that area. Now, being based in Ilok, you were
9 aware of these problems with the Red Berets, weren't you?
10 A. No, I was not aware of these problems.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Let us have on the screen 1D3087. This is tab 272.
12 Q. This is a Slavonia Baranja Corps security organ report, dated
13 2 March 1993.
14 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to page 2 of the English,
15 page 3 of the Serbian version.
16 Q. This document reports that you and the Red Berets conducted a
17 search of the Catholic church in Ilok on the 27th of February, 1993.
18 A. I have page 2 before me.
19 Q. And now hopefully you can see it. It reports that the Red Berets
20 in your presence conducted a search of a Catholic church on the
21 27th of February, 1993, at 3.00 p.m. Now, this is highly specific
22 intelligence information about you and your links to the Red Berets,
23 isn't it?
24 A. According to my records, that never happened. I never conducted
25 a search of a Catholic church.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this be tendered into evidence.
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would object because the witness stated that he
4 doesn't know anything about this.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, this is cross-examination and the
6 Prosecution is using this for impeachment purposes.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
8 MR. ZIVANOVIC: For --
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Well?
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I don't know what kind of impeachment. I don't
11 understand. It is for impeachment purposes.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's what Mr. Olmsted says.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Okay.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
15 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 65 ter 1D3087 will be
16 Exhibit P3272.
17 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could have on the screen -- if we may
18 have on the screen 1D3551. This is tab 282.
19 Oh, and, Your Honours, this is a confidential report. Perhaps we
20 should -- perhaps we should go into closed session -- or private session.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
22 [Private session]
11 Page 12118 redacted. Private session.
5 [Open session]
6 THE REGISTRAR: We're in open session, Your Honours.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Defence counsel showed this
8 witness 65 ter 6540. The Defence did not tender it into evidence. The
9 Prosecution believes it's relevant to this line of questioning, and
10 therefore it seeks to admit that into evidence so that the Trial Chamber
11 can see the complete picture with regard to this issue.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: The document is admitted and marked.
13 THE REGISTRAR: Your Honours, 6540 will be Exhibit P3274.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
15 MR. OLMSTED:
16 Q. Mr. Susa, you testified about your friendship with Mr. Hadzic
17 since high school. Do you still --
18 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we may have some problems with --
19 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes, that's true. There was a
20 delay in the interpretation. That was the problem.
21 MR. OLMSTED:
22 Q. Thank you, Mr. Susa. You still consider Mr. Hadzic to be your
23 friend, don't you?
24 A. Yes, Mr. Hadzic is my friend.
25 Q. While Mr. Hadzic was a fugitive from this Tribunal between 2004
1 and 2011, did you have any communications with him via telephone or
3 A. Well, no, we didn't speak or see each other for approximately
4 ten years.
5 Q. And after Mr. Hadzic was arrested in July of 2011, did you have
6 any direct communications with him?
7 A. He never called me, nor I him.
8 Q. Your August 2014 statement indicates nine dates between
9 25 September 2013 and 1 August 2014 that you were interviewed by
10 Mr. Zivanovic or a member of Mr. Hadzic's Defence team. Prior to
11 September 2013, Mr. Hadzic's Defence team consulted you on matters
12 relevant to this case, didn't they?
13 A. I can't say when that started happening. And, yes, they did
14 contact me. There is nothing in dispute about that.
15 Q. Do you recall what year they first contacted you in? Was it the
16 year that he was arrested?
17 A. No, I think that was the following year.
18 Q. So please tell us, their contacts with you in the year of 2012,
19 what were the nature of those contacts?
20 A. Mr. Zivanovic asked me whether I would be willing to testify as a
21 Defence witness and I agreed. A few months later we met for the first
22 time, we started talking about the Hadzic case. Mr. Zivanovic asked me
23 about my journey through all that was happening from 1991 to the end of
24 my political engagement. Later on we discussed some specific events that
25 I was either involved in or the documents that Mr. Zivanovic assumed I
1 had been involved in drafting.
2 Q. And these discussions that took place in 2012, did they occur
3 prior to the trial beginning against Mr. Hadzic?
4 A. No. The trial had already started.
5 Q. So the trial began in September 2012. So these discussions
6 occurred towards the end of 2012; is that correct?
7 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry. As far as I recall, the witness said that
8 he believes that it was one year after. He didn't fix the year 2012.
9 And I see that the Prosecution always used the year 2012.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: I don't see the problem, Mr. Zivanovic.
11 You may continue, Mr. Olmsted.
12 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Mr. President.
13 Q. I'm just trying to pin-point when these discussion occurred, and
14 you say that they occurred a year after he was arrested, so sometime in
15 2012. You said it was after the trial began. So would it have been
16 towards the end of 2012 that you had these discussions with
17 Mr. Zivanovic?
18 A. You insist on dates. However, at the time they didn't matter
19 that much. I wouldn't be able to tell you, but I knew by then that
20 Mr. Zivanovic was Mr. Hadzic's legal representative. I don't know
21 whether talks happened in September or October or when. In any case,
22 Mr. Zivanovic made a record of every such interview.
23 Q. While you were in The Hague preparing for your testimony, how
24 many days did you meet with the Hadzic Defence team?
25 A. I can give you the number of hours: Six or seven hours all
1 together, an hour a day.
2 Q. So you were here for, what, two weeks, and you met for only six
4 A. Perhaps more. I've been here for a long time and I've seen
5 Mr. Zivanovic almost every day. I believe that he was absent for a
6 while. He attended his mother's funeral [as interpreted] or something.
7 But we were here and we reviewed all the documents that have been
8 presented to me here at trial. I really did not keep a record of the
9 time spent in conversations with the Mr. Zivanovic, but it was not a
10 short time, I would say.
11 Q. That's fine. And we apologise that you've been here for so long.
12 Now, you were interviewed by the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor on
13 10 January 1998.
14 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could bring up 1D2318.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, I just noted one error in transcript. It
17 is line 17. It was not -- the witness did not mention "funeral" but
18 "memorial service."
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. It's noted.
20 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could bring up 1D2318. This is tab 261.
21 Q. And, sir, this is your 1998 statement that I'm drawing to your
22 attention. Now, prior to signing this statement it was read to you in
23 the Serbian language by an interpreter; correct?
24 A. Not correct. I told you that that statement had been read to me
25 in Serbian by Miroslav Vasic in Toma Fila's law firm.
1 Q. Besides signing each page of the statement, you signed the
2 acknowledgement at the end --
3 MR. OLMSTED: If we could turn to the second-to-last page.
4 Q. -- confirming that the statement was read over to you in the
5 Serbian language and is true to the best of your knowledge and
6 recollection. Now, as an experienced attorney, you're aware of the
7 significance of signing such an acknowledgement; correct?
8 A. I had no reason to doubt the veracity of what was read to me by
9 Mr. Vasic on the premises of Toma Fila's law firm. He represented the
10 Defence of the accused, after all. I was forced to rely on his knowledge
11 of the whole matter. I signed what was read to me by him.
12 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can go to the first page.
13 Q. We see that also present that day when this statement was read
14 back to you was Toma Fila, the attorney for Slavko Dokmanovic.
15 MR. OLMSTED: If we could turn to the first page.
16 Q. And I think you've already mentioned Mr. Vasic being present.
17 But also present were Vladimir Petrovic and Sanja Leskovac, and they were
18 all members of the Dokmanovic Defence team, weren't they?
19 A. I am not disputing that at all.
20 Q. And both Mr. Fila and Mr. Vasic speak English?
21 A. Quite possible. I'm sure about Vasic. I don't know about Fila.
22 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to 1D2319, page 32, which is
23 transcript page 3266. This is tab 262.
24 Q. Now, on May 26th, 1998, you testified in the Dokmanovic trial.
25 MR. OLMSTED: And I don't think we -- I don't know if we have a
1 B/C/S version of this.
2 Q. But at that trial, you testified that this 1998 statement of
3 yours was read back to you in Serbian and you signed the statement as
4 being true and correct. Is that right?
5 A. I repeat: I'm telling you how we arrived at the Serbian version.
6 I never saw it in that form. As for that English version, I signed it
7 because Mr. Vasic said that it was okay.
8 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could just turn to the next page in the
10 Q. And during cross-examination, the attorney for the Prosecution
11 referred to your 1998 statement on a number of occasions, and the only
12 mistake that you pointed out was with regard to the participation of
13 Veselin Sljivancanin at the Velepromet meeting on the 20th of November,
14 1991; isn't that correct? You didn't point out any other errors.
15 A. Obviously there are some parts of the statement which are of
16 interest only for the Dokmanovic case. I'm afraid that Mr. Vasic focused
17 on that part concerning the conduct and the movements of
18 Mr. Slavko Dokmanovic. I had access only to that part of statement that
19 he read back to me and that was important for him. My whole statement is
20 important, in my view and from my point of view, that is, but I heard
21 only the part of the statement that he read back to me. And now, as
22 you're showing the statement to me in English, I really cannot decipher
23 what's important and what's not.
24 Q. You testified that the SBWS judiciary began to function at the
25 beginning of November 1991. In carrying out their functions, the SBWS
1 courts and prosecutors' offices, which I'll refer to as "the judiciary"
2 just for simplicity's sake, applied the laws of the SFRY and the Republic
3 of Serbia until the SBWS or the RSK established its own laws; correct?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. And with regard to the SFRY laws, the SBWS courts applied, among
6 others, the SFRY Criminal Code and SFRY Criminal Procedure Code?
7 A. Yes. They applied SFRY laws for the crimes contained therein.
8 Most of the crimes were described in republican criminal codes and those
9 were separately implemented in Croatia and in Serbia.
10 Q. The SFRY Law on the Military Courts is another law that was
11 applied in the SBWS until Mr. Hadzic issued by decree an RSK Law on the
12 Military Courts in February of 1993; correct?
13 A. You could say that.
14 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have P2518 on the screen. This is
15 tab 1. And if we could look at Article 1 of the SFRY Law on Military
17 Q. We see that it limits the criminal jurisdiction of the military
18 courts to criminal offences committed by military personnel and those
19 involving certain criminal offences committed by other persons which
20 relate to national defence and state security.
21 A. I have a problem with interpretation.
22 Q. Mr. Susa, did you hear what I said or do I need to repeat it?
23 A. I did. You don't have to repeat. I heard it. Yes, that's what
24 is written.
25 MR. OLMSTED: And if we look at page 2 --
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted, when reading from a document, you
2 should pay particular attention to the speed you're reading it. I think
3 that's the basis of the problem.
4 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll keep that in mind.
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
6 MR. OLMSTED: If we could turn to page 2. And I'm wondering --
7 no, we want to have P2518 on the left-hand -- on the right-hand screen
8 the English is -- no, I stand corrected. I apologise. Page 2, if we
9 could look at Article 9.
10 Q. This article defines military personnel as including soldiers on
11 compulsory military service, military school cadets, active junior
12 officer, officer, or noncombat specialist, persons from the reserve force
13 while as conscripts on military duty, or a civilian carrying out specific
14 military duty.
15 Mr. Susa, members of the Territorial Defence do not fall within
16 this definition of military personnel; isn't that correct?
17 A. No, you are not correct. They definitely fall within two
18 categories: Either persons under number 4 or persons under 5. They're
19 either from the reserve force or civilians performing some military
21 Q. Well, I'll put to you that being a member of a TO unit does not
22 mean that you are a reserve officer. That is -- or reserve -- member of
23 the reserve force. Rather, the TO was separate under the SFRY Law on
24 All People's Defence from the JNA and police. That's in Article 102 of
25 that law.
1 A. I would say that you are not right, because at the moment when
2 front lines are opened and war activities begin, the Territorial Defence
3 begins to function under the command of the army and as an integral part
4 of the army.
5 Q. That would be the case if they were resubordinated to the army
6 but it's not necessarily the case; isn't that correct?
7 A. When they are resubordinated to the army, that's the way they
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I think that the witness should see this
11 provision of the law the Prosecution referred to. It is Article 102 of
12 Law on All People's Defence.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Defence counsel can certainly show that to this
14 witness during re-examination, Your Honours.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: But it was part of the question of the
16 Prosecution concerning this particular provision, and it would be fair to
17 show that to the witness, this article.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: I agree with Mr. Zivanovic, Mr. Olmsted, unless
19 the witness says that he knows what is in Article 102.
20 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have L10 on the screen. This is tab 2.
21 And if we could turn to page 64 of the English, page 17 of the original.
22 Q. And if I could draw your attention to Article 102.
23 MR. OLMSTED: And in the English if we could -- yes.
24 Q. It states:
25 "Territorial Defence shall comprise all armed formations which
1 are not incorporated in the Yugoslav People's Army and the police."
2 And --
3 A. I don't see that's the position. It's not written in that
4 article. Maybe there is another article?
5 MR. OLMSTED: May we -- if we could turn the page. Is it -- page
6 of the original version. I think it's in the third paragraph.
7 Q. And perhaps you see it now.
8 "The Territorial Defence shall comprise all armed formations
9 which are not incorporated in the Yugoslav People's Army and the police."
10 And, sir, that is what we were just talking about. Because all
11 the Territorial Defence is not resubordinated to the army, it was
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, maybe it should be more precise. What
14 Territorial Defence was not resubordinated? What part of
15 Territorial Defence, from which area or from ...?
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: I don't see any problem with the theoretical
17 question as such, Mr. Zivanovic.
18 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I don't think the Prosecutor is
19 showing me the right article. Article 103 would be much more relevant,
20 which says something slightly different from what the Prosecutor is
21 putting to me. I really had no occasion to familiarise myself properly
22 with this law, but in any case, it's quite obvious what Article 103 says
23 and you can see who, and when, controls the Territorial Defence.
24 This is a bit different from what the Prosecutor was saying.
25 MR. OLMSTED:
1 Q. Well, as your knowledge of this law is clearly limited, we'll
2 move on. But let me ask you this: Paramilitary groups --
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, I think we would like to see at
4 this point in time Article 103. I suppose it's the next page in the
5 English version. There it is.
6 You may proceed.
7 MR. OLMSTED:
8 Q. Just turning briefly to paramilitary groups, armed paramilitary
9 groups. They did not fall within the definition of military personnel
10 because by definition they were outside the army; isn't that correct?
11 A. That's how it should be.
12 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could go back to P2518, the Law on
13 Military Courts.
14 Well, Your Honours, I see the time, and perhaps two minutes is
15 not enough to even go into the next matter.
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
17 Mr. Susa, this is it for today. We expect you to be back
18 tomorrow morning at 9.00. And as previously said, you are still a
19 witness under oath. You may not discuss your testimony with anybody and
20 you cannot have contact with any of the parties. Thank you.
21 Court adjourned.
22 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.57 p.m.,
23 to be reconvened on Friday, the 10th day
24 of October, 2014, at 9.00 a.m.