1 Monday, 13 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 Mr. Registrar, could you call the case, please.
8 THE REGISTRAR: Thank you. And good morning, Your Honours. This
9 is case 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, for the Defence.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Defence of
18 Goran Hadzic, Zoran Zivanovic and Christopher Gosnell. Thank you.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. Can we have the witness, please.
20 [The witness takes the stand]
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Good morning, Mr. Susa. May I remind that you
22 are still --
23 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Good morning.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: I remind you that you are still under oath.
25 Mr. Olmsted, please proceed.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Mr. President. May we have 65 ter 6688
2 on the screen. This is tab 176.
3 WITNESS: VOJIN SUSA [Resumed]
4 [Witness answered through interpreter]
5 Cross-examination by Mr. Olmsted: [Continued]
6 Q. Good morning, Mr. Susa.
7 A. Good morning.
8 Q. I want to begin by finishing up with the issue of the military
9 courts that were established in the Banija area back in 1993. What we
10 have in front of us is a 19 August 1993 report from the president of the
11 RSK Supreme Court to the RSK Ministry of Justice.
12 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to page 2 of the English we
13 can stay where we are in the original.
14 Q. Milos Vojnovic reports that all judgements of the military court
15 of first instance attached to the 39th Corps of the Serbian army of the
16 RSK received until now have been cancelled ex officio.
17 Mr. Susa, the military courts that you and Mr. Hadzic deemed to
18 be unlawful were in the end abolished and their decisions rendered null
19 and void; isn't that correct?
20 A. Correct. That was along the lines of my previous thinking, but I
21 have to remind you at this time I was no longer minister of justice.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this be admitted into evidence.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
24 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P3298, Your Honours.
25 MR. OLMSTED: If we may have 65 ter 1597.2 on the screen. This
1 is tab 82.
2 Q. Mr. Susa, I want to return to the 28 April 1993 RSK Assembly
4 A. I haven't got anything yet.
5 THE REGISTRAR: It appears it's not released, Mr. Olmsted.
6 [Prosecution counsel confer]
7 MR. OLMSTED: It should now be released.
8 And if we could turn to page 19 of the original, page 27 of the
9 English version.
10 Q. Mr. Susa, during the session, which you attended, Milan Martic
11 gave a short speech about the work of the police in 1992 in which he
12 states that:
13 "The police have filed 15.000 criminal reports in 1992 of which
14 5.000 were for general crimes, while the remaining 10.000 reports were
15 against 61.000 Croats who fought against us."
16 Now, the 10.000 reports against the 61.000 Croats refers to cases
17 involving crimes against the state under chapter 15 of the SFRY
18 criminal code; isn't that correct?
19 A. I suppose so. I don't know the exact numbers.
20 Q. Mr. Martic then acknowledges the low number of final judgements
21 which he attributes to the judiciary. And, in particular, he states:
22 "Therein lies the cause. It is not my fault that after three
23 days common murderers are released, and there are many such examples. It
24 is not my fault that judges who should uphold rule of law talk the
25 criminals' relatives into writing petitions so that they may be released.
1 They compete as to who will release such people faster. This is neither
2 mine nor the police's fault."
3 Mr. Susa, what Mr. Martic is saying here is accurate, isn't it?
4 A. Unfortunately, that's not accurate and it's good that it's not
5 accurate. Mr. Martic at this moment is trying to shift the blame for the
6 police's failures and the job they didn't do, and we see that from this
7 number of 60.000 criminal reports. And not a single case was recorded
8 where our judges released murders to go free if the case files had been
9 processed properly. We'll go back, if you have time, to the
10 Djuro Kresovic case and you will see what it was really like.
11 We did our job rather well but we were not able to proceed based
12 on criminal complaints that were incomplete, completely improvised,
13 without any evidence, just so that the police could cover their backs by
14 statistics showing that they are doing something. It would have been
15 very important, and that requires a serious approach by the assembly, if
16 Mr. Martic had come up with specific cases where this was done, which
17 judges were involved, so we would have been able to start the procedure
18 to dismiss them or call them to disciplinary or other responsibility.
19 Because what Mr. Martic is talking about here are criminal acts, and they
20 were not doing their job.
21 Q. Mr. Martic then acknowledges:
22 "We," meaning the police, "are not angels. There are no two ways
23 around it, but we have cleaned up our act. We did not have the time to
24 vet the people who entered the ranks of the special purpose units and all
25 that. We simply admitted our own to be police and that's that."
1 Here, Mr. Martic is acknowledging that he had -- admitted persons
2 with criminal propensities into the RSK police ranks; correct?
3 A. If I could see the second page. I suppose you're reading already
4 from the second page.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Sir, if we can turn to the next page. Yes, there.
6 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Thank you.
7 MR. OLMSTED:
8 Q. But, in essence, he is admitting that there were police officers
9 with criminal propensities and they were allowed into the police force;
11 A. Mr. Milan Martic knows that. I don't. The only thing I know -
12 and I said that before and I'm saying it now - is that they either didn't
13 know how to do their job or they didn't want to do their job. Now,
14 whether there were also criminals among them, I'm sorry, but I didn't
15 know that.
16 Q. When he refers to "admitting our own to be police," he means
17 admitting Serbs into the police; isn't that correct?
18 A. Yes. But we're not going to draw any fatal conclusions for that,
19 such as that the majority of our people are bent on crime. He had a
20 chance, just like I did, to admit into the service professional people,
21 ten instead of 300, as long as those ten were able to do the job as I
23 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to the next page in the
24 English. We can stay where we are in the original.
25 Q. And, in fact, you then responded to Mr. Martic's speech. And if
1 we see a little bit into your speech, you state that:
2 "It is certainly hard to be at the head of a formation which
3 numbers over 36.000 people."
4 The formation you're referring to is RSK police; correct?
5 A. Yes, of course. If I remember now, I had about 120, 130 judges
6 in all the bodies.
7 Q. And somewhat consistent with what you just testified to, you then
9 "At the police, they have tried to make up for quality with
11 And there you're referring to the low level of professionalism as
12 well as the high level of criminality within the police force; correct?
13 A. Yes. But I would not like to speculate about any crime. At that
14 time I didn't have any evidence of that. All the information was
15 superficial and this gathering was too serious for me to come up with
16 such a claim. But in principle, I defended the positions of the
18 Q. You then assert:
19 "The thing that bothers citizens the most is perhaps not whether
20 somebody was sentenced to a year, more or less, they are bothered by the
21 fact that they are not safe in the streets, that shots are fired under
22 their windows, that they are beaten and robbed in full view."
23 Further on you state:
24 "Unfortunately, I know them and so do you, but this does not have
25 to cast a dark shadow on any of the sectors. Many individuals tarnished
1 the uniform they wore."
2 Mr. Susa, the known perpetrators of crimes to which you were
3 referring to, who tarnished their uniforms, were members of the police,
4 weren't they?
5 A. Again, I have to say it was not all about crime. They behaved
6 improperly in other ways. They came to work half drunk. They committed
7 traffic violations. They were responsible for various wrong-doing which
8 made them really improper as police officers. I was aware of cases where
9 I really thought that the person should not wear the uniform, but in the
10 judiciary, people do not wear uniforms. They work in civilian clothing.
11 We know all that.
12 Q. And these problems among the police force that you described
13 during your speech here, as well as here today, you informed the
14 Ministry of Interior about these problems, didn't you?
15 A. Yes, I did. In a way that I thought was constructive, that it
16 would not be pure criticism or provocation. I did that regularly,
17 continuously, and the judges in the field did the same. They sent their
18 complaints to the secretaries of the interior in the area in which they
20 Q. And yet here, towards the very end of your stint as minister of
21 justice, those problems continued and that is why you gave this speech;
23 A. These problems persisted, and they were somehow provoked and you
24 couldn't deal with them so easily. I was able to understand Martic too.
25 There was a huge number of people carrying weapons. It was difficult to
1 control. Not everybody is responsible, not everybody acts responsibly
2 when they have a weapon. There were situations where people got drunk
3 and kept shooting all night. The problems arose from the fact that law
4 and order could not be established in such a broad area within such a
5 short time. We pointed that out constantly.
6 Q. Mr. Susa, the problem arose, as you said in the speech, because
7 the police did not properly vet persons they allowed into the ranks of
8 the police force; correct, isn't that [sic]?
9 A. To a certain extent, yes.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, we would move to add the last two
11 pages that I showed to the witness to Exhibit P3081, which is a partial
12 collection of pages from the 20 April 1993 assembly session. So we would
13 just moving to add these two pages that we've now looked at.
14 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
15 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Your Honours, so far, the Prosecution tendered
16 the parts of this transcript as the -- with the initial number by adding
17 the dot and the further -- the further number behind the dot. And I
18 would just suggest to do it today in the same manner because many parts
19 of these particular documents were -- had been tendered into evidence as
20 a part of this document.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Mr. President, I have no problem with that
23 procedure. I was simply going to suggest that we just add these two
24 pages to the exhibit so there's not so many sub-exhibits relating to the
25 same document, but I defer to the Trial Chamber as what to do.
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: As far as I recall, there are maybe 15 or 20
2 such -- such cases as to this particular exhibit. So one more or less is
3 not a problem, I think.
4 MR. OLMSTED: What we could do, Your Honours, if I may just
5 respond to that, is the Prosecution would be happy to compile them all
6 into one exhibit and we could simply substitute P3081 with the
7 amalgamated version, and therefore, Your Honours, when it comes to
8 reviewing the evidence, you only have to look at one document as opposed
9 to, you know, five or six or 15. I don't -- but again, I'm happy to do
10 it -- if that's the way it has been done, I'm happy to proceed that way
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Actually it is complicated because we also
13 tendered one portion of this particular document into exhibit, and it
14 would be good for the Trial Chamber to have this document in its entirety
16 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's for sure, Mr. Zivanovic.
17 What we will do for the moment, and we can eventually take other
18 measures afterwards, but for the moment we will admit those two -- these
19 two pages under a new exhibit number with a dot original number. The dot
20 original number refers then to the -- well, I suppose the P -- what is
21 the number, Mr. Olmsted? P?
22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, it's P3081.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yeah. That will be after the dot.
24 MR. OLMSTED: So I believe this will be P3081.3?
25 [Prosecution counsel confer]
1 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, it would be .1 because according to
2 our records, there's only been 3081 so far been admitted into evidence.
3 [Prosecution counsel confer]
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: I was suggesting something else, Mr. Olmsted. I
5 was suggesting giving this document a new P number and then dot original
6 number. The original number being after the dot.
7 MR. OLMSTED: I apologise, Mr. President, I misunderstood you.
8 JUDGE DELVOIE: That's what we will do. Admitted and marked.
9 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P3299.3081, Your Honours.
10 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
11 MR. OLMSTED:
12 Q. Mr. Susa, in your Dokmanovic testimony, you describe the
13 territorial organisation of the SBWS as a pyramid form. At the base of
14 the pyramid were the local communes. Above them were the municipal
15 Executive Councils. And then the SBWS government was at the top of the
16 executive authority. Correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 MR. OLMSTED: Let us look at 65 ter 1939.22.
19 Q. This is a 12 August 1991 decision by Goran Hadzic. And through
20 this decision --
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
22 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, it is not correctly interpreted. It is
23 clearly said in the first paragraph of this document that the document
24 was adopted by the Serbian National Council.
25 MR. OLMSTED:
1 Q. Mr. Susa, I was referring to the issuing person at the bottom,
2 which is -- shows it's Goran Hadzic. And through this decision, the
3 Serbian National Council establishes the foundations for local
4 administration in the Serb-held parts of the SBWS based upon the
5 Serbian National Council declaration on sovereign autonomy.
6 If we turn to the next page in the English, we see under item 3
7 that the Executive Councils were to discharge all functions of local
8 administration in local communes.
9 Now it was based upon this that the Executive Council was
10 established in Baranja when Beli Manastir was taken over by Serb forces
11 approximately a week or so after this decision; correct?
12 A. I can tell you that most of this is not familiar to me. I was
13 not a member of the Serbian National Council. As for these decisions
14 they made, I'm not sure they were really applied in practice because
15 already a month later we built up this system quite differently. If you
16 ask me specifically about Baranja and Beli Manastir, I don't know what
17 they were applying there. I appeared in Baranja only a month later with
18 a considerably changed concept of bodies of local and state
19 administration. I could not comment on this. But, in any case, we did
20 not rely on this at all when we were creating our new concept.
21 Q. Well, when you arrived in Beli Manastir after this decision was
22 issued, there was an Executive Council in Beli Manastir. Wasn't that
24 A. To be quite honest, in Beli Manastir, there were bodies that had
25 been formed and elected back during the Croatian elections. So those
1 were the same people who had been elected at local elections in Croatia
2 of which I knew nothing. And when I arrived in Beli Manastir, that was
3 after the assembly session where we were elected ministers, when the
4 government was formed, and then with the assistance of my associates, I
5 ran a check. That's all I was able to do because there was nothing else.
6 These local communes we are talking about, they relied on the
7 municipal seats that still existed in Croatia. The only assembly that
8 still existed and that never stopped working was in Beli Manastir. And
9 there, we got them to undertake that in the following period, they would
10 harmonise all their documents with the decisions taken by the assembly.
11 So if we are talking about the work of the municipality of
12 Beli Manastir -- and you have to remember that even before the war you
13 had the municipality and the Executive Board of the municipality, the
14 executive branch. It was not a new creation that did not exist in
15 Croatia before that. All this was already functioning and very familiar,
16 and the people from Beli Manastir operated within that system.
17 Q. The president of the Beli Manastir Executive Council,
18 Borivoje Zivanovic, was not the president of the Beli Manastir
19 Executive Council prior to the conflict, was he?
20 A. I don't know. I really don't know that. That was something that
21 I did not have to pay attention to. But I don't know really what was
22 happening in Baranja before the war or during the war. I don't know
23 everything that went on, other than what happened through the work of the
24 Tribunals, the courts that were in Baranja, and because of the buildings
25 that were preserved because they were of most use.
1 Q. Mr. Susa, you answered the question with your first sentence
2 which is: "I don't know." And I ask you to try to keep your answers as
3 brief as possible.
4 Now, under item 4, it requires the establishment of local
5 authorities where they do not exist. The SBWS government worked to
6 establish those authorities in the months that followed as towns
7 throughout the SBWS were taken over by Serb forces, didn't they?
8 A. It was not just the pace that was crucial. There were places
9 that we had in the beginning and we held them continuously for the most
10 part. Nothing major changed there or no new places were added.
11 Authorities were being set up with difficulty because we lacked the
12 proper cadres to do it with.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Let us take a look at D6. This is tab 183. And
14 these are minutes from a meeting in Lovas on 30 October 1991.
15 Q. Now, by 30 October, Serb forces had essentially taken over the
16 villages in Western Srem with the exception of, perhaps, Vinkovci;
18 A. That's correct.
19 MR. OLMSTED: And if we can turn to page 2 of the English. We
20 can stay where we are in the original.
21 Q. We see under number 13 that you attended this meeting along with
22 a number of SBWS government representatives; correct?
23 A. Correct.
24 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn back to the first page in the
1 Q. This meeting was also attended by local commune representatives
2 and TO staff members from various villages in Western Srem, including, we
3 can see under number 3, Ljuban Devetak; correct?
4 A. That is correct.
5 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to page 3 of both of original
6 and the English version.
7 Q. We see in -- I draw your attention to the bottom of the page.
8 Mladen Hadzic discusses looting and plundering and states that the
9 TO Staffs and civilian protection have a special task in this. The
10 specialist services will deal with the problem of crime quickly and
11 effectively. The civilian authorities must become organised as soon as
13 MR. OLMSTED: And we might have to turn to the next page in the
14 original for the last bit.
15 Q. Mr. Hadzic is acknowledging that it is the responsibility of the
16 local authorities to address crime, at least with regard to looting and
17 plundering, isn't he?
18 A. Not quite. In the sense that they need to act when theft and
19 robbery takes place, it's known who should be processing that. But they
20 would need to appear in a preventive phase and to keep an eye on what's
21 happening in their area. But other than reporting any crimes such as
22 robberies and thefts to the police, they were not expected to do anything
23 in this domain.
24 Q. He also discusses the need for civilian authorities to organise.
25 Mr. Susa, the primary purpose of this meeting in Lovas was to discuss how
1 the government can assist with that organisation; isn't that correct?
2 A. That is what we always did.
3 Q. And if we turn to page 7 of both the original and the English, we
4 see that you spoke at this meeting. And you state:
5 "The government members are visiting all settlements. Wherever
6 there are government members, they are doing something usual."
7 You're referring to the SBWS government members; correct?
8 A. Yes, correct.
9 Q. And if we can turn to page 8 of both of English and the original,
10 we see that Bogdan Vojnovic, who I believe you have already testified was
11 the SBWS minister of finance, reports that socially owned property is
12 being transferred to the jurisdiction of the government and that
13 co-operatives were being formed. He further reported that the government
14 will appoint people to these enterprises.
15 Now, the appointment of heads of the socially owned enterprises
16 were subsequently made by SBWS authorities, weren't they?
17 A. Of course, they had to do that. There was no other way. This
18 was the most efficient way.
19 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to 65 ter 6507. This is
20 tab 151.
21 THE INTERPRETER: Counsel is kindly requested by the interpreters
22 to slow down when reading. Thank you.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Noted.
24 Q. What we have in front of us is a list of main enterprises and
25 appointed temporary heads dated 28 January 1992. The list shows that the
1 Vukovar municipality Executive Council issued 49 appointments, including,
2 if we can look at page 2 in the English, under number 23, Ljuban Devetak
3 as head of the Lovas agricultural co-operative.
4 Now these appointments were made consistent with what
5 Mr. Vojnovic announced at the Lovas meeting, as well as the government's
6 decisions on territorial organisation; correct?
7 A. Correct.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution would move to tender
9 65 ter 6507 into evidence, as well as the earlier document,
10 65 ter 1939.22.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would object as to the document 1939.22 because
13 the witness was not able to give any information about this document, and
14 he didn't know anything about it.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Olmsted.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Yes. That document dealt with the issue
17 establishing local authorities, organising local authorities, and though
18 the witness was not able to speak particularly to that document, he was
19 able to discuss or to testify about the process of organising local
20 authorities. And the minutes of the Lovas meeting that we just looked at
21 as well as this document that's in front of us confirm that, and so the
22 Prosecution submits that that document is relevant to this line of
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
25 MR. ZIVANOVIC: In my understanding, there is no foundation for
1 tendering of this document. Otherwise, through the one witness who knows
2 just something about one document about civilian authorities, the party
3 could tender into evidence all documents regarding civilian authorities
4 disregarding whether the witness know anything about them or not.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Well, Your Honours, if I may just say something
6 more. This is cross-examination. And during direct examination, the
7 issue of establishing civilian authorities in the villages and
8 municipalities was put into issue. And the document 1939.22 addresses
9 that issue. Now whether this witness asserts that he is not -- familiar
10 with it or not is, to a certain degree, besides the point because it goes
11 directly to that issue and it is relevant in evaluating what weight to
12 provide to this witness's evidence on that issue.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It is just -- sorry. Just to point out that the
14 witness spoke, indeed, about the civilian authorities but not about this
15 particular period. It is 12 August 1991. And -- and because of that, I
16 think that there is no foundation for tendering this document.
17 [Trial Chamber confers]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: The objection is sustained.
19 There's only one document that is admitted and marked. Could you
20 repeat the number, Mr. Olmsted.
21 MR. OLMSTED: 65 ter 6507.
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. That one is admitted and marked.
23 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P3300, Your Honours.
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you very much.
25 MR. OLMSTED: Now if we may have D19 on the screen. This is
1 tab 131.
2 Q. Mr. Susa, this is the 20 November 1991 order from the
3 1st Military District Command that Mr. Zivanovic showed you during direct
5 Now, putting aside the issue of the date of this order, it is
6 clear from the language of this order that the 1st Military
7 District Command required that military town commands, to the extent they
8 existed, co-operate with the civilian authorities, isn't it?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. You testified concerning Srbobran Bibic, who is referred to in
11 this order. And if I could show you 65 ter 716, this is tab 292, and
12 what I'm about to show you is a 26 November 1991 Politika article
13 entitled: "Vukovar will not be abandoned."
14 MR. OLMSTED: And I believe it's, yes, to the upper right of the
16 Now, towards the end of this article, if we can go towards the
17 last paragraphs of it, the report -- first of all, this is a report from
18 Vukovar on 25 November 1991. And it reports that the SBWS government has
19 "delegated Srbobran Bibic, as the chairman of the Executive Council, the
20 mandate to make the necessary preparations for establishment of a genuine
21 civilian rule in Vukovar."
22 Q. So already by 25 November when this story is being reported,
23 Bibic was performing the duties of chairman of the Vukovar Executive
24 Council; correct?
25 A. I would have to look at the decision. I don't know whether that
1 happened on that day, just on the basis of an article in the newspaper.
2 According to what I remember, I think that he was appointed as the
3 president of the Vukovar Executive Council a little bit later. But
4 without the decision, I really couldn't comment on it. Perhaps all of
5 this is correct. I don't know. I didn't read the article so I cannot
6 really say anything about it. But if you were to ask me specifically
7 when Srbobran Bibic was appointed president of the Executive Council of
8 Vukovar municipality, I wouldn't be able to tell you unless I saw the
9 relevant decision on his appointment.
10 Q. Mr. Susa I'm not asking you the date of his appointment. What
11 I'm asking you is that he was performing the duties of that position at
12 least by 25 November. In other words, even if he was appointed at a
13 later date formally, he was performing the duties earlier. Correct?
14 A. I don't know. I know that he was carrying out the duties but I
15 don't know whether that was earlier or later. I cannot really say that.
16 But at any rate, for a certain period he was performing those duties, but
17 I cannot really specify the period.
18 Q. And back on 19 and 20 November, Goran Hadzic was advocating that
19 he be given this position, wasn't he?
20 A. On the 19th and the 20th? Hmm, I don't know that. I don't know
21 that he was advocating that on the 19th or the 20th of November for
22 Rajko Bibic to be appointed. I don't think he could have come in favour
23 of that because only a few days later did the law on the local
24 organisation, the territorial organisation, come out. Perhaps it was in
25 some informal talk, but this could not have happened in any official
2 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution would tender this
3 article into evidence.
4 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would object. There is no foundation. Because
5 witness doesn't know anything about position of Srbobran Bibic on that
6 particular day.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the Prosecution submits that it has
8 established enough nexus given that this was the issue with regard to the
9 previous document as far as when Mr. Bibic was performing the duties of
10 president of the Executive Council. The witness has testified that Bibic
11 held the position. He's testified that it's at least possible that he
12 was performing those duties even before his appointment, so we believe
13 that the nexus has been established for the purposes that the Prosecution
14 is tendering this document.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: The objection is sustained.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Let us have 65 ter 6049 on the screen. This is
17 tab 133. This is a 11 December 1991 instruction from the 1st Military
18 District Command regarding the request for use of abandoned property by
19 representatives of the local authorities.
20 Q. Now, under item 1, the 1st Military District Command instructs
21 its subordinate units to resolve all issues of this kind in co-operation
22 with and at the request of the SBWS government, representatives of
23 elected local organs of power recognised by the SBWS government or
24 commissioners appointed by the SBWS government.
25 Mr. Susa, this instruction is calling for co-operation which is
1 consistent with the earlier 1st Military District order we looked at.
2 Isn't that correct?
3 A. Not quite. Namely, if we were just to stick to what is written,
4 then that is so. But in practice that was not actually so. It would
5 have been good had it been this way.
6 Q. It is clear that the 1st Military District Command, its position
7 on the issue of civilian authorities, was that the Town Commands should
8 co-operate with them; correct?
9 A. Yes, correct.
10 MR. OLMSTED: May this be admitted into evidence, Your Honours.
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
12 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P3301, Your Honours.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
14 MR. OLMSTED:
15 Q. You described last week the Ilok Town Command as a drastic
16 situation. It was the case, wasn't it, that in many other towns and
17 villages in Western Srem, the relationship between the military, the JNA,
18 and the civilian authorities was one of co-operation; correct?
19 A. No. The Ilok area was completely uncooperative and that's why I
20 cannot really say that. The Ilok outpost of the TO Staff --
21 THE INTERPRETER: The interpreter did not hear which TO Staff.
22 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] -- did not show any co-operation in
23 this regard.
24 MR. OLMSTED:
25 Q. Which TO Staff did you refer to?
1 A. Vojvodina. The TO Staff of Vojvodina.
2 Mr. Belic was not a professional soldier. He was a reserve
3 officer whom the Vojvodina TO sent to that function. So this the
4 information that I had at my disposal.
5 Q. But my question to you was that putting aside your views on the
6 Ilok Town Command and Colonel Belic, in other villages in Western Srem,
7 there was co-operation between the civilian authorities and the JNA;
9 A. I assume that that's what happened. At the local level, from one
10 town to the next, perhaps you could monitor this.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Let us look at 65 ter 6107. This is tab 142.
12 Q. This is a 25 February 1992 report by the 3rd Mechanised Brigade
13 command which reports under item 1:
14 "The Town Commands of Tovarnik, and Ilaca are in contact with the
15 civilian and military authorities in the settlements every day. We
16 monitor, advise, and help them in their work."
17 This is consistent, Mr. Susa, with the role assigned to
18 Town Commands by the 1st Military District; isn't that correct?
19 A. Yes. To form the civilian organs of authority as well. This is
20 something that we must not forget.
21 Q. To help them; correct?
22 A. Very often, not. And this is something that you can see clearly
23 from their orders and, let's say, obligatory instructions for conduct
24 where they are told to form the civilian organs of authority in places
25 where there were none.
1 Q. Well, you agree that where there are none, where there is
2 anarchy, that something, someone has to form some kind of civilian
3 authorities. If not the SBWS government, then the JNA has to step in to
4 help with that process; correct?
5 A. That is not so simple. That would be the most general
6 interpretation of what could be implemented. We were not able to set up
7 civilian authorities in all areas because of the definitive and clear
8 position of the military authorities that, until further notice, they
9 were exercising all forms of authority in places where combat action was
10 going on. And this something that they used to cover themselves any time
11 something that could not be completed or implemented.
12 Q. You mentioned combat actions, but by February 1992, there were no
13 combat actions in Western Srem as you've testified to. At that stage,
14 the JNA -- and again I'm putting aside for the moment the Ilok
15 Town Command which you and Mr. Hadzic assert you had difficulties with.
16 But putting aside the Ilok Town Command, elsewhere the JNA was doing its
17 best to help the civilian authorities establish themselves in those
18 villages and towns; correct?
19 A. For the most part within their remit and sometimes beyond that,
20 and mostly not informing us about the objective or the needs of the
21 co-operation but by specifically forming their own organs of civilian
22 authority. They had their own officers who were especially entrusted
23 with these issues.
24 When I'm talking about combat, I don't mean that it existed
25 specifically, but the army would constantly represent the entire area as
1 an area where combat was being conducted or was just about to begin,
2 which was not true. I agree with you on that.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, may this be admitted into evidence.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
5 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P3302, Your Honours.
6 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
7 MR. OLMSTED: If we may have D30 on the screen. This is tab 135.
8 Q. Mr. Susa, this will be the 23 December 1991 letter from
9 Goran Hadzic to the Ilok Town Command which you looked at during direct
10 examination last week.
11 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to the next page in the
12 English only. We can stay where we are for the original.
13 Q. Mr. Hadzic informs Colonel Belic of your appointment as SBWS
14 government representative to the JNA. To your knowledge, was this the
15 first letter that Mr. Hadzic wrote to the Ilok town commander?
16 A. Yes. But it was not their first contact. The first contact was
17 effected through me, through my verbal address to the colonel.
18 Q. Are you aware of any other correspondence that Mr. Hadzic wrote
19 to the Ilok town commander in 1991 or 1992?
20 A. I'm not aware that this happened before this.
21 Q. My question is: Even after -- after this letter, did Mr. Hadzic
22 ever write again to the Ilok town commander, to your knowledge?
23 A. Mr. Hadzic did not have to do that. They established a
24 commission which carried out all negotiations and correspondence with
25 them. This was Mr. Bogunovic, Mr. Vojnovic, Mr. Visic, and myself.
1 Q. Did you or Mr. Hadzic ever write to the 1st Military
2 District Command with regard to the issues that are raised in this
4 A. I did not write to the command of the 1st Military District
5 regarding the situation in Ilok. I wrote another letter to them, and
6 that was only once. I think it was only once.
7 Q. You're referring to your 27 November letter regarding the
8 Sremska Mitrovica prisoners; correct?
9 A. Yes, that is correct.
10 Q. Did you or Mr. Hadzic ever write to the 1st Proletariat Guards
11 Mechanised division command regarding the issues raised in this letter?
12 A. I don't think so.
13 MR. OLMSTED: Now if we can look at page 3 of the English, page 2
14 of the original. I believe this is the penultimate paragraph in the
16 Q. Mr. Hadzic informs the Ilok town commander that the SBWS
17 government had decided to grant Serb refugees from Western Slavonia
18 accommodation in Western Srem, which was a reiteration of its earlier
20 Mr. Susa, when did the government make its initial decision to
21 grant Serb refugees with accommodation in Western Srem? Do you recall
23 A. That was before we established that commission which included
24 Vojnovic, Visic, and myself. Until then it was not necessary because
25 there were no refugees. Refugees appeared just before this letter, after
1 their conflict in Western Slavonia and they -- their arrival in
2 Backa Palanka.
3 Q. How was the government's decision conveyed to the Serb refugees
4 in Backa Palanka?
5 A. That government decision was not conveyed to Serb refugees until
6 the first attempts were made for them to come. This is one of the ways
7 to create the right conditions, and at this moment, we had not yet had
8 any direct talks with the refugees. We didn't tell them where to go. We
9 didn't know how this whole thing would end and what resources we had at
10 our disposal.
11 MR. OLMSTED: Let's look at P3222. This is tab 182.
12 Q. And what I'm about to show you, Mr. Susa, is a 7 November Novosti
13 article. It is entitled: "Accommodation provided," and it is --
14 MR. OLMSTED: If we can go to the bottom of the original, it's
15 the middle article, at the very bottom.
16 Q. And the article states that the prime minister of the SBWS,
17 Goran Hadzic, yesterday issued a call to all Serbs expelled by the
18 Ustasha authorities and who have been rendered homeless by the
19 destruction of war, that they may temporarily settle in the SBWS, and
20 that was in a statement that was received by Tanjug.
21 So it was the case, Mr. Susa, that in early November 1991,
22 Mr. Hadzic made a more general call for Serbs expelled by Ustasha
23 authorities to settle in the SBWS; correct?
24 A. I don't know about this. And I'm not disputing it. You asked me
25 specifically about Ilok of which I was in charge. I know what we did
1 there. Generally speaking, he could have invited them at this time.
2 There were already houses sitting free and there were places for them to
3 move into. There were many Serb houses available and Croatian houses.
4 I'm not disputing that.
5 Q. Mr. Susa, as minister of justice, you were aware that this was
6 the policy of the SBWS government, weren't you?
7 A. It's not disputed that it was the government policy to receive
8 refugees. That's perfectly all right.
9 Q. This policy even preceded the decisions to allow the refugees in
10 Backa Palanka to enter into Western Srem; correct?
11 A. I don't remember any such general decision. I don't remember
12 that the government discussed what Goran Hadzic said here. But if it had
13 been discussed, I would have been in favour of such a decision.
14 Q. Now, prior to the SBWS government deciding to allow the
15 Backa Palanka -- the refugees in Backa Palanka to enter Western Srem, the
16 government did not issue any written decisions or instructions on how
17 these Serb refugees should be admitted into Western Srem or how their
18 houses should be allocated; isn't that correct?
19 A. That was precisely the purpose of the establishment and the work
20 of the commission in which I was involved. We did that. The government
21 assigned us those powers.
22 Q. And Mr. Hadzic relocated you and Mr. Bogunovic, two of his
23 ministers, to Ilok, to oversee the settlement of Serbs in that area
24 because settlement was a priority of the government, wasn't it?
25 A. No. He moved primarily me and Mr. Vojnovic who did not have
1 offices since the notorious Erdut. And Mr. Bogunovic had nothing to do
2 anyway because he was no longer minister of the interior. He was just
3 attached to us, and very often he was quite useless. Mr. Vojnovic and I
4 had offices of our ministries in Ilok and these offices we didn't have
5 before. We dealt with settlement as an additional activity to the other
6 activities of our ministries. It was not our primary job.
7 Mr. OLMSTED: Let us have P370 on the screen. This is tab 134.
8 And what you'll be looking at is 23 December 1991 instructions
9 from the commands of the 1st Proletarian Guards Mechanised Division. And
10 if we could look at page 2 of the English.
11 Q. We can see that on the same date that Mr. Hadzic wrote his letter
12 to the Ilok town commander, Major-General Delic, who was Colonel Belic's
13 superior, issued instructions to defer all settlement and return issues
14 to the municipal civilian -- civilian authorities, or to the extent those
15 authorities did not exist, to the SBWS commissioner or to the SBWS
17 Mr. Susa, this is precisely what Mr. Hadzic was asking for in his
18 letter; correct?
19 A. No. These elements did not impose any obligations on the
20 commission where I worked. The army's positions were sometimes in
21 collision with ours. There was no developed methodology as to who would
22 move into which houses. We did not think about which of the Croats left
23 to join some armed formations and we did not decide that their houses
24 would be taken over. We dealt only with practical issues, how many
25 houses were available, how many people needed accommodation and that was
2 Q. But, Mr. Susa, you're not answering my question. My question was
3 just to the fact that in this order, General Delic is informing his
4 subordinates to defer all settlement issues and return issues to the
5 civilian authorities, and that is precisely what Mr. Hadzic wanted; isn't
6 it correct?
7 A. Yes. But then I should like to warn you about the paragraph that
9 "Town Commands should ensure, regardless of who issues the
10 decision, and especially if it is the commands that do it, that the
11 houses allotted to refugees from other areas to move in, even on a
12 temporary basis, are first and foremost of those people who will most
13 certainly not come back because of the crimes they committed. This is to
14 avoid that the owner of an abandoned house appears after it has been let
15 out, and even if he appears, there is at least some argument for
17 Q. That seems to be a sensible order, doesn't it, Mr. Susa?
18 A. I would not agree that it's that sensible. It's a bit
20 MR. OLMSTED: Let us look at P1932. This is tab 136.
21 And this is the 25 December 1991 response of the Ilok town
22 commander to Mr. Hadzic's 23 December letter. And if we can look at
23 page 2 of the English. We can stay where we are on the original.
24 Q. Colonel Belic writes:
25 "I must admit that I expected there would be comprehensive,
1 primarily planned and organised involvement by members of the government
2 of the Serb District in connection with the settlement of refugees from
3 Western Slavonia. We must quickly leave our illusions behind and be
4 completely engaged in resolving the problems. That is why I assumed that
5 the SAO government would form an immigration department, as part of a
6 relevant ministry, which would be in contact with the military
7 authorities, form offices for handling transport and accommodation in
8 vacant houses, and appoint representatives who would deal with the
9 refugees' social security, et cetera."
10 He then encourages Mr. Hadzic to begin resolving these issues.
11 Mr. Susa, it would have been better for the SBWS government to
12 have organised the sort of things that Colonel Belic is raising in this
13 letter before passing the decision allowing Serbs to enter into Western
14 Srem, wouldn't it have been?
15 A. I'm afraid that you are not right for several reasons regarding
16 this letter by Colonel Belic.
17 This letter actually tells us about many things that
18 Colonel Belic should have been doing and wasn't. First, what he says
19 about houses being listed, that's not true. At this point in time, they
20 had already moved people into more than a hundred buildings. He is
21 writing this letter although at the same time there are proposals sitting
22 on his desk as to what should be done, and he is writing this for our
23 education; whereas in the previous letter you showed me, it is written
24 clearly what he failed to do, what he should have done, and what we
25 should have done. And now he is suggesting us to us what we should be
1 doing. And all this time, he is keeping us out of Ilok and not letting
2 us do any of the things that we proposed.
3 You know why he is writing this letter? Because he knows that
4 everyone knows what had been going on in Ilok, and he is not keeping any
5 secrets anymore because there are no secrets to keep. He knows that all
6 the thieving in Ilok is well-known to everybody.
7 Q. On page 3 of this document, both the English and the original,
8 Colonel Belic writes:
9 "In order to overcome problems and to resolve the most important
10 issues quickly, effectively, and in a planned and sound manner, I place
11 my command at your disposal."
12 Did Mr. Hadzic share this letter with you back in 1991?
13 A. I saw it and I read it, and I was very glad that Colonel Belic
14 realised finally all his mistakes. And, of course, in the period that
15 followed, he failed to implement any of these things.
16 This is a political letter, equal to a pamphlet.
17 MR. OLMSTED: May we have P1709 on the screen. This is tab 137.
18 P1709, tab 137.
19 Q. This is a 29 December 1991 letter that you wrote, Mr. Susa, and
20 you address the letter to "Colonel." That was Colonel Belic; correct?
21 A. I don't know that. I don't know if he was still there. You will
22 see when we get the record from that meeting in Borac. I'm not sure that
23 Colonel Belic was there. I believe he had been replaced by that time.
24 It was somebody else probably in the rank of colonel. But I didn't know
25 the name, so I just wrote "colonel."
1 Q. Well, at any rate, you invited the colonel to a meeting to be
2 held that was being organised by the SBWS commission for the next day, so
3 for the 30th of December, which would be attended by representatives of
4 the Vukovar Executive Council and all settlements where temporary
5 accommodation is being carried out.
6 MR. OLMSTED: If we could turn to P1710, tab 138.
7 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Sorry, it doesn't say they were
8 being implemented. It says: "Your presence would contribute" -- now we
9 have moved from that passage.
10 MR. ZIVANOVIC: May the witness have the opportunity to read the
11 document and complete his answer. Previous document.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: The previous document?
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes.
14 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have P1709 on the screen again.
15 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] I'll try to be quick. I'm saying:
16 "Your presence would help clearly define problems and find ways
17 to resolve it and also to the undisturbed completion of this difficult
18 but humane mission."
19 I'm just saying that it could be organised in this way.
20 As far as we are concerned, I know for a fact that we had not
21 started any settlement yet at this point. We were just preparing.
22 MR. OLMSTED:
23 Q. Mr. Susa, you are going well beyond my question which was simply
24 that you invited the colonel to the meeting.
25 MR. OLMSTED: So let's please move on to the next document, which
1 is P1710.
2 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Yes.
3 MR. OLMSTED:
4 Q. Now, this is a report by the JNA but it's with regard to the
5 meeting that you organised. And we can see at the beginning of the
6 document in the second paragraph that from the military, from the -- the
7 army, two colonels showed up, both Colonel Milos Miljkovic and
8 Colonel Milan Belic. Correct?
9 A. Right.
10 Q. All right.
11 A. Doesn't matter.
12 Q. Now the SBWS government labelled the Serbs who were coming to the
13 Western Srem area as refugees from Western Slavonia. But in many cases,
14 the persons coming were not refugees; isn't that correct?
15 A. They were not refugees. They had been expelled. That's correct.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Let's look at P1818.1. This is tab 27. This is a
17 6 December 1991 DB Serbia report. And if we could turn to page 3 of the
18 English, page 2 of the original, it reports that:
19 "The Belgrade Radio and Television are having a negative effect
20 on the soldiers and population as they were calling on people to settle
21 temporarily in Eastern Slavonia, which resulted in the area being
23 Q. Mr. Susa, this is referring to the broadcasts that were being
24 made at the behest of the SBWS government, isn't it?
25 A. Of course not. We did not wield such influence.
1 You skipped the first page. There was an interesting sentence
2 but I'm not going to come back to that. From that we see that Ustashas
3 had attacked their villages. I'm not using the term "Ustasha" myself. I
4 saw it in the report.
5 As for your claim that we organised broadcasts to instigate these
6 people to come, no, that did not happen.
7 Q. And, again, Mr. Susa, you answered my question with your first
8 sentence: "Of course not."
9 The report then states that the announcements have caused Serb
10 soldiers and police from Western Slavonia to leave the front and go to
11 Eastern Slavonia, Beli Manastir, Ilok, and other towns where their
12 housing an employment problems could resolved.
13 Again, I ask: Some of the Serbs coming to Western Srem fell into
14 that category, didn't they?
15 A. I cannot tell you that. I don't know how many people got their
16 information through the media or if they had electricity at all. I
17 remember programmes where we invited --
18 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: I cannot remember
19 any programmes wherein we invited people to leave Western Slavonia and
20 come live with us.
21 MR. OLMSTED: Let us look at 1D1400. This is tab 257.
22 Q. What I'm about to show you, Mr. Susa, is a 29 September 1993
23 Official Note of an interview of Zoran Pendic. And if we can look at
24 paragraph 3, this individual states that he arrived in Krajina on
25 20 September 1991 with 23 other volunteers from Smederevska Palanka and
1 joined the Guards Brigade in fighting in Vukovar and other places in
2 Western Srem. Smederevska Palanka is in Serbia, correct?
3 A. Correct.
4 Q. And if we look at the paragraph 4, the next paragraph, it states:
5 "At the end of the war, some time in March 1992, he took up
6 residence in Nijemci where he was given a Croatian house to live in."
7 Nijemci is near Tovarnik, isn't it?
8 A. To the left of Tovarnik when you travel towards Vinkovci,
10 Q. So it was the case that Serbs from Serbia who served as
11 volunteers in Western Srem were also given houses; correct?
12 A. They did, but they shouldn't have. This person does not fall
13 into the category of refugees or displaced persons. This was not under
14 our jurisdiction. I don't know from whom he received that house.
15 Probably from the army.
16 MR. OLMSTED: May this be admitted into evidence, Your Honours.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
18 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P3303, Your Honours.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
20 MR. OLMSTED: Mr. President, I see the time.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you, Mr. Olmsted.
22 Mr. Susa, we'll take the first break, 30 minutes. We'll be back
23 at 11.00. Thank you.
24 Court adjourned.
25 --- Recess taken at 10.28 a.m.
1 [The witness stands down]
2 --- On resuming at 11.10 a.m.
3 JUDGE DELVOIE: Before we bring the witness in, a short oral
5 The Trial Chamber heard the Defence submission about additional
6 time for proofing of three witnesses. The Trial Chamber is not convinced
7 that it is reasonable to ask more time, more than three days for proofing
8 of each of these witnesses, and, therefore, the request is denied. And
9 in light of this, the Chamber sees no reason to alter the schedule of the
10 manner through which these witnesses should be heard as requested by the
11 Defence and it expects no delay in the trial schedule.
12 The witness may be brought in.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, just for one clarification as to the cost
14 of expenses of this witnesses if they come as planned. Because --
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: We don't interfere with that, Mr. Zivanovic. We
16 don't -- we don't think you need more than three days.
17 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes, that's correct. But I don't know what's
18 about the costs.
19 JUDGE DELVOIE: There is no issue about the costs.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It was. Because they are scheduled to come and
21 it -- is it mean that I have to reschedule my -- my plan for their
22 arrival to The Hague? I'm not informed about it.
23 [The witness takes the stand]
24 JUDGE DELVOIE: If your actual schedule is for more than three
25 days --
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Yes --
2 JUDGE DELVOIE: -- you should, indeed.
3 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I should need, what? To pay?
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: No. To -- to let them come for three days and
5 not more or whatever other -- whatever other measures you want to take.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, but it is really unclear for me. If they
7 come here and I have -- I'm really not -- not sufficiently informed about
8 what I have to -- whether I have to pay their stay in The Hague if I meet
9 them for more than three days. That's only issue is here.
10 [Trial Chamber confers]
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: It isn't a matter for us, Mr. Zivanovic.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: But --
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: You organised your Defence as you wish, and you
14 know what VWS intends to do with your -- with your witnesses and with the
15 time they are here. And all the rest is not for us to decide upon.
16 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Okay. But I -- as far as I understood, I had to
17 address you for -- for this interpretation, but, okay, thank you.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: The witness may be brought in.
19 Sorry, sorry -- oh. Yes. I'm sorry about that. The witness is
20 already in. Mr. Susa is there, and Mr. Olmsted is ready to proceed.
21 Please do.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Mr. President. If we could have on the
23 screen 65 ter 5910.1.
24 Q. Mr. Susa, what's in front of you is a decision of the SBWS
25 Executive Council dated 20 July 1992. Were you aware of this decision by
1 the SBWS Executive Council establishing an SBWS committee for refugees?
2 A. I'm not really all that well informed about it, but I assumed
3 that it's all correct. But this was not in the domain of my work, so I
4 really don't know.
5 Q. Well, if you don't know about this decision, I won't ask any
6 questions about it.
7 While you were --
8 A. I was already a member of the RSK government so I don't know
9 anything about the work of the District Council in this period.
10 Q. While you were in Western Srem, you were aware that civilian
11 authorities in some of the Western Srem villages were pressuring the
12 remaining non-Serb population to move out of the area; correct?
13 A. I didn't know that as a specific fact, but there was talk about
15 MR. OLMSTED: If we could look at 1D3485. This is tab 278. And
16 this is a ...
17 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Would that be a confidential document,
19 Mr. Olmsted? Which -- what is the tab number?
20 MR. OLMSTED: 278. And it may be, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: It may be, or it is?
22 MR. OLMSTED: I'm going to check right now.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay.
24 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
25 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, perhaps we should go into private session.
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: [Microphone not activated] The previous document
2 Mr. Registrar --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please, Your Honour.
4 JUDGE DELVOIE: Sorry. The Registrar tells me that the previous
5 document has a Rule 70 indication on it.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours --
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is that right?
8 MR. OLMSTED: Yes, Your Honours. But I don't believe it would
9 apply to this document which is a totally separate -- it is a part of
10 that larger document which had protection --
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay, so this --
12 MR. OLMSTED: -- but this was an attachment to that.
13 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. So there's no problem with that one. And
14 we do not broadcast this one, is that sufficient? Or should we go into
15 private session?
16 MR. OLMSTED: May we -- it's a Defence document but perhaps we
17 should go into private session, Your Honours.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: Private session, please.
19 [Private session]
11 Page 12260 redacted. Private session.
2 [Open session]
3 THE REGISTRAR: We're back in open session, Your Honours.
4 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have P372 on the screen. This is
5 tab 140.
6 Q. And what you are about to look at is an 11 February 1992
7 memorandum from the Central Settlement Committee to the Mohovo local
9 First of all, could you look to -- as far as the issuing parties
10 at the very bottom, who -- who is listed under number 2? Our translation
11 doesn't indicate who it is.
12 A. That is Milorad Visic, a member of the Executive Council of the
13 municipality of Vukovar. It's Dr. Milorad Visic.
14 Q. Now we see at the very top it's written: "Ministry of Justice."
15 Did you write this memorandum?
16 A. I did. I did. We didn't have the proper memoranda so we used
18 Q. In paragraph 1, you indicate that the Mohovo local commune
19 submitted a proposal to the Central Settlement Committee to move out
20 unwanted Croats because of their connections with members of the HDZ and
22 And in response to this proposal, the committee informs the local
23 commune that they:
24 "... have all the necessary authorities to make decisions about
25 which citizens of the local commune are allowed to live in the territory
1 and which are not."
2 You next inform the commune that the Serbian District has not
3 adopted any decisions regarding moving out Croats from the
4 Serbian District because it is obvious that nationality alone doesn't
5 present sufficient grounds.
6 At this time, you were aware that Croats were being expelled from
7 villages in the SBWS solely based on their ethnicity and that is why you
8 included the statement that ethnicity alone isn't sufficient; correct?
9 A. No, your conclusion is the opposite of what is written here. I
10 explained exactly how this letter was drafted, and this is the only
11 document in which we touched upon the subject of future moving people
12 out. We usually avoided that but this was a specific circumstance
13 explained by the people from Mohovo. This was not classical moving --
14 classic moving out, if we wanted to really discuss this matter. People
15 were leaving for different reasons. One of them was of an economic
16 nature. And then we also explained that no one can be expelled or leave
17 an area just because they were a Croat or a Serb. That is quite clear.
18 There were also requests by Serbs to leave the area, and that is
19 something that we also need to mention.
20 Q. So it's your assertion that in the time of writing this
21 memorandum you weren't aware that non-Serbs were being expelled solely
22 based on their ethnicity. Is that your evidence?
23 A. In instances when Croats were expelled, I don't know what the
24 reasons were for that. Perhaps it wasn't the main reason. Perhaps it
25 was easier to get to their property if they were Croats. There was no
1 particular criteria that could be applied on the work of the commission
2 in respect of the desire to move out as many Croats as possible. It was
3 explicitly said: Get off our back, you and the army, and we're going to
4 do what we need to do. So I think that the actual resettlement of people
5 from Mohovo never took place.
6 Q. As the SBWS government's attorney, you knew that a blatantly,
7 openly illegal policy of expulsions, if exposed by UNPROFOR or the
8 international media, would result in significant legal problems for the
9 government; correct?
10 A. In the event that we did that, that's quite possible. However,
11 we did not expel anyone, and there is no evidence of that. We were not
12 expelling anyone in this correspondence either. We are informing the
13 local communities that in all future actions they need to report to us.
14 Had they done that, then we would have considered what we should do.
15 Q. Well, you then state:
16 "However, should the organs of your MZ establish that these
17 individuals have violated the law and order of the Serbian District, if
18 there is reliable information that they have collaborated with the enemy
19 and the Ustasha authorities, and if it is established that their actions
20 are still motivated by such positions and beliefs, then the competent
21 organs of the MZ are not only entitled but required at the initiative of
22 the inhabitants of the MZ and the organs of the MZ to resolve all issues
23 related to the status of individuals residing in their territory; that
24 is, they are entitled and required to withhold from such individuals
25 their right to stay or permanently reside in the MZ."
1 The government's position was, Mr. Susa, to leave it to the
2 village authorities to decide whether reliable information existed that a
3 non-Serb was an enemy or Ustasha collaborator and therefore should be
4 removed from their local commune; correct?
5 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry. Is it -- is it citation from the document
6 that it was government position or it was just the question of the
8 MR. OLMSTED: I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. It is the
9 question I am putting to this witness.
10 Q. It was the government's position, wasn't it, Mr. Susa?
11 A. It was the position of the central commission regarding this
12 particular individual case. There were no other positions in any other
13 settlement. This was done ad hoc because of the enormous problems that
14 were happening in Mohovo and there was a threat of escalation and a
15 possibility of casualties. This is the way in which we calmed this down,
16 and we put them in a position that they themselves needed to discuss
17 this. They did not make any decisions on this matter, and ultimately
18 they didn't decide anything. But the fact is that in Mohovo, the
19 situation exceeded the bounds that could be controlled.
20 We had the authority in this respect. We behaved in a
21 responsible manner, and this is an example of that fact.
22 Q. You were representatives of the SBWS government in Western Srem.
23 When you wrote this memorandum, you were speaking on behalf of the
24 government, weren't you?
25 A. I don't dispute that.
1 Q. And what you state in this memorandum would apply equally to
2 other local communes, for instance, such as Mirkovci, if they encountered
3 the same situation where there were Croats or other non-Serbs that were
4 perceived to be a danger to that community; correct?
5 A. I couldn't really speak about that now. This was not a
6 memorandum for everyone. This was specifically addressed to the local
7 commune in Mohovo. This was not a general position. And I note that,
8 for me, the key paragraph was the last paragraph, as far as I'm
9 concerned, that nothing could happen or be done because they were obliged
10 to report to us or to inform us first about anything that they were
11 intending to do.
12 Q. Now, once moved out of the area, the houses of non-Serbs were
13 allocated to Serbs arriving in the area; correct?
14 A. For temporary use, yes.
15 Q. And although the provision of housing to the arriving Serbs was
16 labelled by you and the SBWS government as temporary, the moving out of
17 the non-Serb population from the SBWS was intended to be permanent,
18 wasn't it?
19 A. That was not our intent. It was not our intent at all. And, in
20 particular, it was not a permanent intent of ours.
21 Q. The non-Serbs, to the extent they were moved out because they
22 were deemed to be enemy or Ustasha collaborators, as you mentioned in
23 this memorandum, they were not allowed to return, were they?
24 A. That is not stated anywhere. It's very difficult to say who is
25 guilty and who is not until that is proven. Proceedings were held when
1 people were supposed to be moving in, and it was very easy to prove if
2 anybody took part in any formations or not. We had special instructions
3 on that.
4 Q. Yes. And we saw during your direct examination the decision on
5 the return of -- returns to the RSK. And that was to be done by the
6 police, the very police that you have testified were acting
7 unprofessionally in the 1992 and 1993 time-period; correct?
8 A. No, this was supposed to be done by police officers who were
9 performing their job in a legal and professional manner. Whenever I
10 encountered a case when the police were not professionally and properly
11 carrying out their job, then we would take measures. I would not agree
12 that all the policemen were carrying out their jobs in an unprofessional,
13 incorrect manner.
14 Q. What measures did you take?
15 A. We would report that to their superiors in written reports,
16 noting their specific behaviour if -- and if there were elements for the
17 commission of a crime, then we would initiate proceedings. This is part
18 of the job of the organs of internal affairs. The residence of a
19 specific person in a specific area is still part of their remit.
20 Q. Non-Serbs who were charged with chapter 15 or 16 crimes under the
21 SFRY Criminal Code were also not allowed to return because, if they did,
22 they would face detention, prosecution, and possibly eventual
23 deportation; correct?
24 A. Well, we would see how the interrogation proceedings would end,
25 as to what they did and what they did not, in the same way the request on
1 the part of Croats regarding Serbs on the Croat side would be dealt with.
2 Q. Last week when you testified - this is transcript page 12077 -
3 you said that those charged with crimes were banned from returning to the
4 RSK. Do you stand by that testimony?
5 A. Crimes and misdemeanours are not quite the same things. I would
6 not forbid those who committed crimes from returning. The only thing
7 that would happen would be that they could be tried for those crimes.
8 MR. OLMSTED: Let us look at L1. This is tab 31. And if we
9 could turn to page 15 of the English, page 5 of the original.
10 Q. This is the Law on Enforcement of the Constitutional Law in the
11 SBWS. And if we look at Article 5, it states that the inviolability of
12 private property did not apply to persons whose property is seized based
13 on special terms due to their subversive activities in the period of
14 fighting on the territory of the Serbian District.
15 Mr. Susa, non-Serbs who had their property seized because they
16 were considered to have participated in subversive activities, they lost
17 their property and had nothing to return to in the SBWS. Isn't that
19 A. It's completely incorrect. Those property was confiscated
20 temporarily, and in the end, they all returned to their houses that had
21 not been destroyed. At the time when this property is made available for
22 someone else to use, the ownership rights are not changed. It is still
23 the property of the Croat who had left.
24 Q. When you say they returned to their property, they returned to
25 their property after the reintegration into Croatia; isn't that correct?
1 A. Clearly they were in a much better position than Serbs who could
2 not return because their property had not been preserved. Their property
3 was preserved, and they had something to come back to. That's what we
4 managed to achieve.
5 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at P133. This is tab 33.
6 Q. Non-Serbs who signed a voluntary departure document, such as this
7 one that's in front of you, they also lost their rights to their private
8 property once they left the SBWS; isn't that correct?
9 A. Nobody lost the right to their private property. Not those who
10 left voluntarily, nor those who had allegedly been expelled. Nobody
11 later had any problem to prove their ownership over property. We never
12 called that into question, and we banned it.
13 Q. Now, you testified last week that the Croat authorities placed as
14 a precondition for the return of Croats to the SBWS that the Croatian
15 authorities be re-established in the area; do you recall that?
16 A. I remember that. That's true.
17 MR. OLMSTED: If we could look at 65 ter 5224. This is tab 120.
18 Q. This is an announcement published in the Belgrade Tanjug on
19 17 August 1992, and we see that Mr. Milanovic, the assistant RSK defence
20 minister, calls the announcement that a group of refugees from Croatia
21 will arrive in the SBWS the next day "yet another deception of the
22 Croatian government." And he then goes on to state that both sides must
23 give consent before refugees return.
24 Mr. Susa, in 1992, 1993, the Croatian government was pushing for
25 the return of Croats to the RSK; isn't that correct?
1 A. They tried, but they had not undertaken to do that under the
2 Vance Plan. The Vance Plan gave equal rights to both Serbs and Croats.
3 We were trying to get Serbs to come back, and the Croats tried to get
4 Croats to come back. There was something wrong with that. Both sides
5 should have agreed for everyone to return to their homes.
6 MR. OLMSTED: May this be admitted into evidence, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Admitted and marked.
8 THE REGISTRAR: As Exhibit P3305, Your Honours.
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
10 MR. OLMSTED: If we may have D224 on the screen. This is
11 tab 144.
12 Q. Mr. Zivanovic showed you this document last week. Now, under
13 this mandatory instruction to the commission for temporary moving in as
14 well as other state organs dated 28 September 1992, by its language, only
15 contracts for exchange of property certified by courts outside the RSK
16 were rendered null and void. In other words, contracts certified by the
17 RSK courts were valid. Isn't that the case?
18 A. I'm afraid you haven't understood this mandatory instruction. I
19 am prohibiting the courts in RSK to conclude any contracts on purchase or
20 exchange of property. It's clearly written here.
21 Q. Perhaps we have a translation error then. Because underneath the
22 capitalised "Obligatory work instruction to the commission for temporary
23 moving in and other state organs," it is written:
24 "All verbal agreements and contracts certified by courts with
25 headquarters outside the Republic of Serbian Krajina ..." and continues
1 from there.
2 Is that what it states?
3 A. That's what is written there. But it's not the point. It's not
4 the essence. It's only that.
5 Q. And then if we look three paragraphs below that, you write:
6 "On the other hand, exchange and purchase/sale are allowed to all
7 citizens of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and all contracts must be
8 certified by authorised courts with headquarters in the Republic."
9 In other words, the RSK courts; correct?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. So I put to you that this instruction ensured that the RSK
12 authorities controlled how property was distributed in the SBWS, didn't
14 A. No. This was to stop exchanges and swaps that had already begun
15 under suspicious circumstances and were certified on different sides.
16 This was our attempt to go against these bargains wherein somebody would
17 be given something for temporary use. We just did not want to
18 participate in the change of ownership rights. We did not want to
19 approve purchases and sales under suspicious circumstances.
20 Q. The justification you provide in this mandatory instruction was
21 to protect citizens whose property was seized or destroyed in the
22 Republic of Croatia. In other words, this instruction was aimed and
23 protecting Serbs who had come to settle in the SBWS; isn't that correct?
24 A. To some extent, yes.
25 Q. That's the only justification you provide in the document, isn't
2 A. No, it's not the only justification. We definitely knew that at
3 that time there were already ongoing sales of Serb property in Croatia
4 and that was disputable. Whereas the property of Croats in the Krajina
5 was regulated by rules --
6 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please slow down.
7 MR. OLMSTED:
8 Q. Mr. Susa, you went way too fast for the interpreters. Could you
9 please --
10 A. I apologise.
11 Q. The last bit of your answer we need for the record.
12 A. The property that Croats abandoned leaving for Croatia was not
13 subject to purchase or sale because it had the status of property
14 temporarily given to someone else to use. Nobody was able to buy it.
15 And by virtue of that fact, the property of ethnic Croats was
16 sufficiently protected. There wasn't -- there was not a single case
17 recorded of any property being sold as long as it was recorded as
18 property temporarily given to someone to use.
19 MR. OLMSTED: Let us have 65 ter 1597.2 on the screen. Tab 82.
20 And if we could -- again, this is the transcript from the
21 20 April 1993 RSK Assembly session. And if we turn to page 12 of the
22 English, page 8 of the original.
23 We see a speech from Deputy Zivanovic. And he states - and I
24 believe we have to go to the next page in the original - that in the RSK,
25 "nobody can be considered a refugee if they came from Pakrac to
1 Beli Manastir. They should not be treated like that and they should
2 be -- they should not because every citizen who has moved into Baranja
3 has received a house. They have received all the movable and immovable
4 assets of those who had fled to Croatia and they have received land. At
5 the end of the day, they have joined companies and started working or
6 joined our police forces or the military. We think that they can no
7 longer be refugees ..."
8 Q. First of all, Mr. Susa, this is Borislav Zivanovic, the president
9 of the Beli Manastir Executive Council, who is speaking; isn't that
11 A. That's correct.
12 Q. And it is correct what he says, that Serbs who settled in the
13 SBWS and other parts of the RSK were mobilised into the police and
14 Territorial Defence; isn't that correct?
15 A. I did not hear you very well.
16 Q. That's fine, I'll repeat my question.
17 It is correct, isn't it, what Mr. Zivanovic says, that Serbs who
18 settled in the SBWS and other parts of the RSK were mobilised into the
19 police and Territorial Defence, isn't it?
20 A. Possibly. I suppose that's true.
21 Q. And as Mr. Zivanovic points out, Serbs from Western Slavonia were
22 expected to stay in the SBWS; isn't that correct?
23 A. At that time, it was impossible to know yet. Mr. Zivanovic is
24 presenting here some of his personal views, and he says himself that they
25 may be in collision with the law, but these laws could change.
1 Mr. Zivanovic could not maintain that people who had come to the
2 Serbian District of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem were permanently
3 residing there. Nobody knew anything about that yet, and I'm sure
4 Mr. Zivanovic didn't either. And ultimately, the people from Western
5 Slavonia themselves were against it. There was nothing controversial
6 about that.
7 MR. OLMSTED: Mr. President, this is another -- well, for the
8 English, it's one page, for the original, two pages, that come from this
9 20 April session. So I guess it would be another one of these documents
10 we do a .3081 after it. So we would -- we would be tendering into
11 evidence two pages of the B/C/S and one page of the English.
12 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
13 MR. ZIVANOVIC: As far as I see, these documents, when was asked
14 from the Prosecution, has the P1597.2. And previous document from the --
15 from the same minutes was tendered as P3299.301 as far as I recall. And
16 I suggested that all these documents, all the parts of the same
17 documents, be under the same number.
18 JUDGE DELVOIE: There is indeed a possibility of confusion,
19 Mr. Zivanovic, and probably, indeed, the best course of action would be
20 to amalgamate all those different documents into one new documents that
21 we would -- document that we would give just one particular number.
22 Mr. Olmsted, could OTP propose such a new document and confer
23 with the Defence about it, and when you agree, come back to us.
24 MR. OLMSTED: Absolutely, Mr. President.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you. So we will now admit this -- this one
1 as part of whatever has to be done afterwards for the entirety. So let's
2 give it a new number just as we did the -- did with the previous one with
3 the dot --
4 MR. OLMSTED: 3081 [Microphone not activated].
5 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, indeed. Yes, Mr. Registrar.
6 THE REGISTRAR: That will be Exhibit P3306.3081, Your Honours.
7 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
8 MR. OLMSTED:
9 Q. Mr. Susa, the SBWS and RSK governments never announced a
10 moratorium on the settling of Serbs in the territory under their control,
11 did they?
12 A. They could not announce such a moratorium because the Serbs kept
13 coming in ever larger numbers.
14 Q. Well, in fact, if we could look at P38 - this is tab 56 - we see
15 the declaration authorising the return of emigrants and displaced
16 persons. We see from this decision, or this declaration, that they kept
17 on inviting Serbs back into the region; isn't that correct?
18 A. Yes. But those were people who had been expelled. This
19 primarily applies to people who had been expelled and had problems with
20 the post-war Communist regime. And for reasons that they deemed
21 unjustified, they had to leave this region, and I believe this is
23 MR. OLMSTED: If we could look at 65 ter 6527. This is tab 152.
24 And these are minutes from the SBWS District Council meeting held on
25 25 May 1992 in Erdut. And if we could turn to the last page just
2 Q. Can you tell us who issued these minutes?
3 A. I could not tell you that because I told you I was no longer a
4 member of this body. In fact, I was never a member of this body. This
5 body was created after the unification into the Republic of Serbian
6 Krajina, and there were people there whom I didn't even know.
7 You see, they are creating new stamps, new letterheads. It's a
8 body that remained there after we left.
9 Q. Well, the English version says that the District Council
10 president was Milan Ilic. That's correct, isn't it?
11 A. Yes, yes, that's correct.
12 Q. And if we could turn back to page 1, can you tell us for how long
13 did the central settlement committee operate for? When did it dissolve
15 A. Probably even at this moment it still existed but in a different
16 composition because we had left and some other people came on board after
17 the Republic of Serbian Krajina was created.
18 Q. And, in fact, the SBWS District Council established a commission
19 to deal with settlement; isn't that correct?
20 A. I don't know. I was no longer dealing with these affairs at that
21 time. I never read this, so I really can't comment.
22 Q. Mr. Susa, the effect of moving out -- the moving out of non-Serbs
23 and the moving in of Serbs into the SBWS, was it -- during the 1992 to
24 1993 period, the SBWS became and remained an ethnic Serb majority
25 territory, didn't it?
1 A. I believe that even before, in the greatest part Slavonia,
2 Baranja, and Western Srem, it had a Serb majority. This did not change
3 significantly the ethnic composition. You're asking me about demographic
4 statistics, and I'm not prepared for that. But I believe that in the
5 largest part of SBWS the Serb population was in the majority.
6 Q. Prior to the conflict in the area that's now known as
7 Western Srem, the Serbs were not a majority, were they?
8 A. I don't want to talk about numbers that I know nothing about. I
9 am not a demographer or a historian.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Let's have 65 ter 1098 on the screen.
11 Q. Now what we have in front of us is a Washington Post article
12 dated 17 May 1992. Now, you have your 2014 statement in front of you,
13 and in paragraph 145 of that statement, you discuss this interview with
14 Blaine Harden from the Washington Post.
15 Do you recall that you discussed that in your statement?
16 A. Yes. I don't see that statement now in Serbian.
17 Q. No, you have -- your statement is to your left but you don't need
18 to look at it if you recall that you do, in fact, discuss it in your 2014
20 Now, if we could turn to page 2 of the statement, you were quoted
21 by the journalist as stating:
22 "We have the final say with regard to allowing Croat refugees to
23 come home."
24 That was the official position of the RSK government, wasn't it?
25 A. It was not the official position. It was the regulation, and it
1 didn't depend on any conditions being met. By that time, we had already
2 made a decision on the way in which refugees may return.
3 Q. If we turn to page 3 of the -- the document, Mr. Harden writes in
4 this article:
5 "This restoration of the old status quo," and he's referring to
6 the area's pre-war ethnic composition, "is not acceptable to the Serbs,
7 according to Susa, the Serb legal officer here, who said the region
8 should have a Serb majority."
9 That was your position, wasn't it?
10 A. I don't know. I didn't see this translation before, and I'm not
11 sure it corresponds to what I really said.
12 Q. Well, let me help you out. In your 2014 statement, in
13 paragraph 145, you say that this statement was taken out of context.
14 A. Well, I'm explaining here exactly why it was taken out of
15 context. If what has been read out to me indeed reads as you say, then
16 it fits into what is written here. I explain why the return of Croat
17 refugees is not possible and what needs to be done before they are able
18 to come back to their homes, and it concerns the project that was covered
19 by UN peacekeeping forces, meaning that the Serbs may also be enabled to
20 go back to their homes. Otherwise, they would have nowhere to go.
21 Q. But the bottom line, Mr. Susa, was that the region, in
22 particular, Western Srem, would have to remain an ethnic Serb majority
23 area. And that was your position, wasn't it?
24 A. No. My position was that everyone should return to their homes.
25 If everybody from Western Slavonia had come back to their homes, I don't
1 know what the demographic situation would have been, but it's sure that
2 the Serbs in SBWS would have been that much less numerous.
3 MR. OLMSTED: Let us look at 65 ter 1102. This is tab 55.
4 Q. And this is a newspaper article by Ian Traynor dated 18 May 1992.
5 And again we don't have, unfortunately, a Serbian version of this
6 article. But this reporter was in Ilok around the same time as
7 Mr. Harden and reports on an incident in which Kate Horvat came to
8 Ilok -- to the Ilok chateau where your offices were located to inquire
9 about the arrest of her Slovak husband. Do you recall that incident?
10 A. No, I don't remember that incident. I don't know if she was
11 supposed to ask me for anything concerning this incident, but I know
12 nothing about this.
13 Q. Further on in the article, he reports that you told about your
14 arrest prior to the conflict, where you suffered injuries to your sinus
15 cavity and received beating while you were being held by members of Croat
16 forces and that you had to leave Vinkovci. Do you recall telling the
17 reporters about that?
18 A. I don't remember this at all and I don't remember that detail
19 either. It's correct, but I don't know whether that was the topic of my
21 Q. And at the end of the article, Mr. Traynor reports that you
22 declared that the UN should adopt a more realistic view of the objective
23 facts and that among the objective facts, you said that:
24 "Ilok will never again be a town where the Croats and Slovaks
25 outnumber the Serbs."
1 That's what you said, isn't it?
2 A. I did not say that, definitely not. And now, based on this, I
3 now conclude that the gentleman put in the interview whatever he wanted
4 to without my authorisation. As for the Slovaks, that is not realistic
5 because they were a substantial part of the population in Ilok.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Let's look at P28. This is tab 28.
7 Q. These are shorthand notes from the 9 December 1991 meeting of the
8 SFRY Presidency which you attended.
9 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could turn to page 65 of the English,
10 page 90 of the original.
11 Q. We see that you spoke at this meeting, and what we'll need to do
12 is, I think, turn to the next page in the English. As you state at the
13 end of your speech:
14 "The dilemma called Blue Helmets, yes or no, has never existed.
15 We have agreed from the beginning that they should come. The question is
16 where. They have no place there where I heard today that they will
17 arrive. That is the territory under our control. Territory that is our
18 ethnic area."
19 Mr. Susa, that is how you viewed the SBWS, an ethnically Serb
20 area; isn't that correct?
21 A. Nobody's speaking here only about the SBWS, the discussion here
22 of the entire territory where the Serbs are a majority. This is not only
23 about the SBWS. There was about 100 of us at the meeting, and we were
24 covering the entire territory in Croatia where the Serbs were living as a
25 majority, and the regions were not formed in the same way as they were
2 Q. Mr. Susa, at this time, the RSK had not been formed. You were a
3 delegate of the SBWS government and that was your perception of the SBWS;
4 isn't that correct?
5 A. No, I wasn't a government delegate. Everyone from all the Serb
6 regions was invited, so there was discussion as a whole. The plan was
7 not to be applied to us or some parts but to everyone. So what I was
8 talking about applied to the entire area. I don't limit myself anywhere
9 here to the area of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem.
10 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honour, the Prosecution would tender
11 65 ter 1098 and 1102, the two newspaper articles.
12 MR. ZIVANOVIC: I would object for 1102 because the witness
13 doesn't know anything about this interview. I think the ... sorry, just
14 to double-check the number. Yes, that's it.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Olmsted.
16 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, the second article corroborates the
17 first and it goes to the issue of -- of impeachment and credibility and
18 therefore it should be admitted, with regard to the first one, so that
19 they can be considered together in evaluating this witness's evidence.
20 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, but I object. First to paragraph 2.
21 Because as far as I know, the witness was not able to state anything
22 about it also. It is 65 1098.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Now I understand that the -- that the Defence is
24 objecting to both newspaper articles.
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Is that right, Mr. Zivanovic?
1 MR. ZIVANOVIC: That's correct.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Well, again, Your Honours, it goes to the issue of
3 credibility and they should be admitted at the very least for that
4 purpose. I note that the first article was discussed in this witness's
5 proposed 92 ter statement and he acknowledged that.
6 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, sorry, I forgot. I had some confusion
7 because this tendering was asked after the documents are already
9 My -- my objection is restricted just to article -- to the 1102,
10 I think, it was, number. On the second article.
11 MR. OLMSTED: And, Your Honours, then I go back to my original
12 position that they corroborate each other, they were around the same time
13 as each other, and they relate to the same issue.
14 MR. ZIVANOVIC: They have nothing to corroborate. The other
15 article is for itself. And Mr. Susa did not respond anything -- said
16 that he doesn't know anything about this interview.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: The objection is overruled. Documents are
18 admitted and marked.
19 THE REGISTRAR: 65 ter 1098 will be Exhibit P3307. And
20 65 ter 1102 will be Exhibit P3308, Your Honours.
21 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
22 The witness may be escorted out of court. It's the next break,
23 Mr. Susa.
24 [The witness stands down]
25 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic, you took me a little bit by
1 surprise when you asked whether our oral ruling implies that you should
2 pay witnesses yourself for extra proofing days in The Hague. My response
3 would be that you should really know better than to ask the Trial Chamber
4 whether the Defence should pay witnesses.
5 Court adjourned.
6 --- Recess taken at 12.19 p.m.
7 --- On resuming at 12.48 p.m.
8 [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]
9 JUDGE DELVOIE: There is an oral ruling about documents.
10 On the 8th of September, 2014, the Defence filed its third motion
11 to amend its Rule 65 ter exhibit list. The Defence has indicated in the
12 motion that six documents, 1D2595, 1D3642, 1D3644, 1D3645, 1D3646, and
13 1D3650, are intended for use with DGH-016. The Chamber notes that 1D3646
14 and 1D3645 were admitted into evidence on 7 and 9 October 2014,
16 The Prosecution objects to the addition of the remaining
17 documents to the Defence's Rule 65 ter exhibit list on the basis that
18 disclosure was late and it has been deprived of an opportunity to use the
19 documents during Goran Hadzic's testimony.
20 In relation to 1D3642, 1D3644, and 1D3650, the Prosecution
21 additionally objects on the basis that the B/C/S originals of these
22 documents have not been provided.
23 The Defence has replied that the Prosecution has had ample time
24 to digest the documents and the Chamber has allowed amendments to the
25 Prosecution's Rule 65 ter exhibit list even within the Defence was unable
1 to use a document with a prior witness. In relation to 1D3644 and
2 1D3650, the Defence asserts that the Prosecution disclosed these
3 documents to the Defence without the B/C/S original.
4 After considering the submissions of the parties, the Chamber is
5 satisfied that, taking into account the specific circumstances of this
6 case, good cause has been shown for amending the Defence's exhibit list
7 to include 1D2595, 1D3642, 1D3644, and 1D3650. These documents are
8 relevant and of sufficient importance to justify their addition at this
9 stage of the trial. The Chamber is satisfied that the addition of these
10 documents will not result in undue prejudice to the Prosecution as it has
11 had sufficient time to analyse them before DGH-016's testimony.
12 Further more, additions to a party's Rule 65 ter exhibit list
13 during the course of a case imply that the added documents could not be
14 used during prior testimony. This fact alone cannot justify denying a
15 request to amend a party's Rule 65 ter exhibit list. The Trial Chamber
16 notes, however, that if the circumstances so require, a party can request
17 to recall a witness.
18 With respect to 1D3642, 1D3644, and 1D3650, the Defence shall
19 seek to obtain the B/C/S originals of the documents before tendering them
20 for admission into evidence.
21 The Trial Chamber remains seized of the motion in all other
23 The witness may be brought in. Thank you.
24 [The witness takes the stand]
25 [Trial Chamber confers]
1 JUDGE DELVOIE: Please proceed, Mr. Olmsted.
2 MR. OLMSTED: Thank you, Mr. President.
3 Q. Mr. Susa, returning to 1991, the SBWS government held meetings
4 approximately twice a week; isn't that correct?
5 A. No, no. They were held less frequently because there were no
6 conditions. We all travelled from Novi Sad. I think the meetings were
7 not as frequent as that.
8 Q. So how frequent do you claim they were?
9 A. Once every two weeks. Perhaps sometimes it would -- the meetings
10 were more frequent, but, on average, that would be that.
11 Q. I'd like you to take a look at your statement from 1998, which, I
12 numbered the paragraphs for you, and I would like to draw your attention
13 to paragraph 5. And it's probably on the next page because it's about
14 halfway down from the paragraph -- from the beginning of the paragraph.
15 Just turn to ... yeah, flip it over. There you go. The paragraph that's
16 at the top of that page. No. Nope. You had it right before. Yes. Top
17 of that page, yes. Right about there. Yes.
18 It's written:
19 "Since the government was formed at the end of August 1991, these
20 meetings," and you're referring to government meetings, "were held twice
21 a week, which means that we had around 20 meetings by 19 November 1991."
22 Do you see that, Mr. Susa?
23 A. I haven't found it. I'm sorry.
24 Q. Okay. Turn to page 3 of the statement. No, I think you're not
25 on page 3. I think you are on page 4. There, now you're on page 3. Now
1 the paragraph that's at the top the page, before paragraph 6, I'm reading
2 from that, and I can't pin-point exactly where in the B/C/S version it's
3 stated, but it is stated --
4 A. It's all right, I found it. It's in the middle of the paragraph.
5 Q. Okay. Thank you. And that's correct, isn't it, that government
6 meetings were held twice a week? And, in fact, the math that you provide
7 is pretty accurate, isn't it, that by the 19th of November, that would
8 mean around 20 meetings.
9 A. Look, it's quite possible. All that was a long time ago. I
10 don't believe we met as often as that. But, all right, I'll allow it.
11 Let's say that we did.
12 Q. Now, in your Dokmanovic testimony, you indicated that -- well,
13 before I get there, if we look at this same paragraph, further down, just
14 the next sentence, you said:
15 "Most of these meetings took place in Erdut and occasionally we
16 would go to Baranja."
17 Is that correct?
18 A. That is correct.
19 Q. Now, in your Dokmanovic testimony, you indicated that the SBWS
20 government held a meeting in Ilok on one occasion. Do you recall when
21 that meeting was held?
22 A. I really don't remember that meeting at all. It's possible that
23 we did have a meeting in Ilok, but I really couldn't tell you when. It
24 had to have been important for some reason for me to be able to remember
1 Q. But as you sit here today, you don't remember that meeting?
2 A. I cannot remember, no.
3 Q. That's fine. And I understand that a lot of time has passed and
4 that's one of the reasons why I'm referring to your 1998 statement on
6 Now, the usual number of participants at government meetings was
7 around 25 to 30 people; correct?
8 A. It's possible, yes. It would be most of the members for the most
10 Q. And, again, I'm taking this from that same paragraph of your 1998
11 statement. Now, one of the persons who frequently attended government
12 meetings in his capacity as president of the municipality of
13 Beli Manastir was Borivoje Zivanovic; correct?
14 A. He would come to Erdut, but he did not attend the government
15 meetings. When the government session was in Erdut, then he would attend
16 it, in the way that he usually waited in the corridor. All of them did
17 it like that. If I said here that he frequently attended government
18 meetings, evidently this was not formulated properly.
19 Q. You didn't correct that in your 2014 statement, did you?
20 A. I explained in my statement from 2014 how these persons appeared
21 in Erdut and what was their basic objective: To find out information
22 that we would be discussing that day, to take the conclusions with them,
23 and very often to discuss with ministers in the corridors or after the
24 government meetings, to actually do the things that were important for
25 them. This applied to Boro Zivanovic frequently. He didn't have the
1 right to address the sessions or to make any decisions. But even if it
2 did happen that he sat in a seat during one of the sessions, there was
3 nothing for him to do there. He couldn't address the meeting. He
4 couldn't speak.
5 Q. And that's why I'm going back to your statement. Your statement
6 says that he attended, frequently attended, government sessions. And if
7 I understand the last bit of your testimony, you stand by that, that he
8 may have attended but he probably didn't say anything?
9 A. He definitely couldn't speak. That was not anybody's right. As
10 for whether he sat there or not, I mean, these meetings were public.
11 There were plenty of seats. They could have sat in. They would not take
12 part in the debate, however, even if they were able to listen to it.
13 Q. Local Territorial Defence commanders from different surrounding
14 villages also regularly attended government meetings; isn't that correct?
15 A. They perhaps attended them in the same way. And not all of them.
16 I think it would be only the people from places where the situation was
17 alarming who would be there. I didn't know them. And it's possible that
18 if the situation was requiring it, things like that would happen.
19 Q. And, in fact, during your Dokmanovic testimony, you testified:
20 "Very frequently, they would sit at the meetings and listen to
21 what was going on. And we wanted to ensure the presence of the public at
22 our meetings because when they would go back to their own villages, they
23 would inform the inhabitants of what we were discussing and what we were
24 preparing to do."
25 You stand by that testimony, don't you?
1 A. I would modify it in this way. There was nothing for them to do
2 at a government meeting. They didn't decide anything or discuss
3 anything. If any of them entered the actual room where the government
4 session was being held, I'm not sure that anybody would throw them out of
5 the room, but their primary goal was to hear the results of decisions
6 that they were interested in. For the most part, they didn't really
7 remain in the room for long, even if they did manage to enter it.
8 Q. In particular, Jovo Rebraca, the Tenja TO commander,
9 Vukasin Egic, the Mirkovci TO commander, and Boro Dobrokez, the Baranja
10 TO commander, would attend almost every government meeting; isn't that
12 And if you want to look at your statement, it's paragraph 6, the
13 next paragraph and it's the end of paragraph 6 and the beginning of
14 paragraph 7.
15 A. I'm just reading that. Generally it's correct. But then I would
16 like to touch upon line 2 of the statement because, as I said, the
17 meetings were working meetings, during which many people would come in
18 and many people would go out. Different materials, documents, were being
19 brought in. That's how it looked, more or less. They didn't have their
20 own particular permanent place at these government meetings.
21 Q. And the TO commanders co-operated with the government by
22 informing the government regularly about the situation in their villages;
24 A. I have to give an important correction here. At this stage, they
25 were not commanders of the Territorial Defence. That didn't exist at
1 all. They were just elected by acclamation among their population and
2 they were in charge of making sure that the village guards functioned.
3 It's too early to speak about any form of Territorial Defence. And it's
4 also a major question what a local commander was. These were just local
5 civilians, inhabitants who had taken up weapons in order to defend
6 themselves. They didn't know anything about command.
7 Q. We -- we understand your evidence, Mr. Susa. But, please, focus
8 on my questions and not on, at this stage, correcting your statement.
9 My question to you was simply that local commanders, if you want
10 to call them village guard commanders, that's fine with me at this stage,
11 they co-operated with the government by informing the government
12 regularly about the situation in their villages; correct?
13 A. Yes. Let me just tell you that the situation was generally very
14 different, and military issues were not discussed, but they were
15 discussed and this was in the context of villages that were under major
17 Q. And these local commanders would come to the SBWS government with
18 the problems they were facing in their daily work, such as discipline in
19 their units and food supplies; correct?
20 A. They did tell us about it. Food supplies and medical, medicine
21 supplies were of primary importance to us.
22 Q. And with regard to these problems, they would ask for assistance
23 from the government; correct?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Now, these local commanders also came to the SBWS government when
1 they experienced manpower shortage and asked you to shift people involved
2 in agricultural or industrial production to perform military functions;
4 A. I'm not sure that we were the ones who would have been able to
5 help them in that. But if they had engaged people in their area for
6 production and sometimes if we had any influence there, perhaps we did
7 free up some people from production duties.
8 Q. And, in fact, that what's you say in paragraph 7 of your
9 1998 statement, that the government relocated people employed in the
10 production sector to the, as you term them, village guards in order to
11 ensure that those villages were adequately defended; correct?
12 A. These were people that generally belong to those villages, and
13 within that context, this probably did happen.
14 Q. And then at the end of paragraph 7:
15 "At the time, nobody was sent to the JNA anymore. Everyone was
16 staying home and even the ones who were with the JNA came back to defend
17 their homes."
18 That's correct, isn't it?
19 A. Yes, that is true, for the most part.
20 Q. The local commanders had, in fact, two superiors, Mr. Susa: The
21 JNA, who would supply them with food, weapons and wages, on the one hand;
22 and the local civilian authorities on the other hand. And when these
23 local commanders were not able to come to terms with the JNA, they would
24 turn to the SBWS government to complain about their problems; isn't that
1 A. Yes, that is correct.
2 Q. And the local commanders asked the SBWS government to act as
3 arbitrators in the relationship with representatives of the army; isn't
4 that correct?
5 A. Sometimes, yes, that is correct.
6 MR. OLMSTED: Now if we could have P3215 on the screen. This is
7 tab 290. And I think we need to turn to the next page. Yes. And scroll
8 down till -- to the bottom of the original. And I think we need -- we
9 see that it starts on the original on the first page but if we go to the
10 second page --
11 Q. It was the case that Mr. Hadzic, as the chairman of the Serbian
12 National Council in the SBWS, appointed Ilija Kojic commander of the SBWS
13 TO Staff in July 1991; correct?
14 A. I have to say that I did not have any part in these decisions. I
15 can read them in the same way that you can. This is the Serbian National
16 Council. I don't know anything about its work, and I was --
17 THE INTERPRETER: Could the witness please repeat the last part
18 of his answer.
19 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, it seems the first --
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: Yes, Mr. Zivanovic.
21 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It seems that the first page in B/C/S was not
22 seen at the screen. Thank you.
23 MR. OLMSTED:
24 Q. I apologise, Mr. Susa, but it seems that the interpreters didn't
25 get the last part of your answer.
1 A. At this point in time, I was not a member of the Serbian National
2 Council, and it was still a long way before the government was formed. I
3 don't know anything about the work of the council. I can read the
4 decision together with you and comment on it, but I don't think that I
5 could do anything else.
6 Q. Were you aware that in August and September of 1991 Ilija Kojic
7 was commander of the SBWS TO?
8 A. Ilija Kojic was elected as defence minister at the same time that
9 I was elected justice minister. That is what I know. I didn't know what
10 his post was until that time. Nobody ever said anything, in particular,
11 about that.
12 Q. Were you aware that the SBWS TO Staff had its headquarters at the
13 Borovo Selo primary school?
14 A. No.
15 MR. OLMSTED: Let us look at 65 ter 1939.24. This is tab 98.
16 And if we can enlarge the original.
17 Q. Mr. Susa, this is a newspaper publication of an appeal of the
18 defence commander for the Autonomous Region of SBWS and it's dated
19 22 September 1991, and we can see at the very end of the appeal that it
20 was made by Ilija Kojic as SBWS defence commander.
21 A. I knew that at that time that we're discussing now, he was
22 defence minister. As to whether he was a commander at the same time,
23 that is something that I'm not sure about.
24 Q. All right.
25 A. The defence commander, I don't know that formulation. I don't
1 know what that could refer to.
2 MR. OLMSTED: And if we could take a look at the sixth
3 paragraph of this document, which is on page 3 of the English.
4 Q. We see that it states in this announcement that:
5 "The deadline for repatriation is 25 September 1991, after which
6 date we shall apply punitive measures against those that have not
7 responded to our last call to battle."
8 You recall, Mr. Susa, that the SBWS government set that deadline;
10 A. Believe me, I did not get involved in these questions and if
11 you're asking me about things like this, I really couldn't say much about
12 it. But let's say that it is so. I mean, I couldn't tell you anything
13 about this in more detail.
14 Q. Well, let's just take a look at one more paragraph in this
15 article. Mr. Kojic, in the next paragraph, appeals to citizens of Serbia
16 to continue recruiting and dispatching volunteers to the territory of the
17 SBWS. Were you aware that that was within the remit of Mr. Kojic?
18 A. I wasn't aware of that. But the appeal could have been sent by
19 anyone. If he was the one who sent it, I assume that he was authorised
20 to do so. I couldn't really say anything about it now. I don't doubt
21 that he said it, but I am not sure as to what his position was at that
22 time, when he did say it.
23 Q. He further discusses the admittance centre for volunteers in
24 Dalj. And, in fact, there were reception centres for volunteers not only
25 in Dalj but also Sid and Sombor; isn't that correct?
1 A. I don't know anything about that. Perhaps it's correct, but I
2 really couldn't say whether it is or isn't. I was not in that area. I
3 did not have information about what you're talking about. I just went to
4 attend the government meetings, and I would return to Belgrade. All of
5 this is something that I don't know anything about. I really couldn't
6 answer with a yes or a no.
7 Q. And that's fine, Mr. Susa. We are exploring the basis of your
8 knowledge for your evidence regarding the village guards or the SBWS TO
9 during this September, August period, and it is perfectly acceptable to
10 say: I simply don't know how it was organised or what activities they
11 were engaged in.
12 But you would agree that Mr. Kojic would be in a much better
13 position, as minister of defence, to speak on these issues?
14 A. I agree that he would be the one who would need to speak on these
16 MR. OLMSTED: Let's have P22 on the screen. This is tab 12.
17 And I'll draw your attention to the article. I believe it's on
18 the right-hand side of the -- of the original. I think it's the
19 second-to-last column towards the top.
20 Q. And the article is entitled: "Constitutional law adopted," and
21 it's dated 25 September 1991. And this article reports on the SBWS
22 Grand National Assembly session held on the 25th of September. And
23 that's the session at which Mr. Hadzic, you, and the rest of his
24 ministers were formally appointed to your positions in the government;
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. And if we can turn to page 2 on the English, and if you could
3 look at the middle column, I think it's the second full paragraph in the
4 middle column, the article reports that Mr. Hadzic stated in his speech
6 "In order for everything to function properly, it was necessary
7 to separate civilian and military affairs. In that respect, the
8 positions of minister of defence and commander of the Territorial Defence
9 are no longer held by one person."
10 Do you recall him making that statement during this assembly
12 A. I really cannot remember all the things that were discussed. I
13 had a lot of operative things to do at the meeting. I was presenting a
14 lot of laws, so it would be really pretentious of me to tell you that I
15 remember everything that everybody said.
16 Q. Well, certainly you would recall that pursuant to this decision,
17 Mr. Kojic no longer held the positions of both minister of defence and
18 SBWS TO commander?
19 A. I know at this assembly he was appointed minister of defence. I
20 said that. What he was before that, I don't know, but I know that after
21 he was only the defence minister.
22 Q. And to fill in the position of SBWS TO commander, that position
23 was given to Radovan Stojicic, wasn't it?
24 A. Radovan Stojicic, Badza, was the commander of the Territorial
1 Q. He formally assumed that position at this stage, didn't he?
2 A. I don't know if that was the assembly during which we appointed
3 Radovan Stojicic, Badza, as TO commander. We would need to see that
4 somewhere. I really don't remember much about that.
5 MR. OLMSTED: If we could have 65 ter 6686 on the screen. This
6 is tab 174. And this should not be broadcast to the witness.
7 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
8 MR. OLMSTED: Just to confirm that I asked for 65 ter 6686 to be
9 on the screen but not broadcast to the witness.
10 [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]
11 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. Mr. Olmsted, are you telling us that we do
12 the normal thing which is broadcast it to the public but not to the
14 MR. OLMSTED: Actually, probably it's better that the public
15 doesn't see it either, so it would just be the parties and Your Honours
16 that can see it.
17 JUDGE DELVOIE: Okay. We can do that.
18 MR. OLMSTED: All right. And if we could turn to page 8, I'm
19 interested in paragraph 26.
20 JUDGE DELVOIE: If it's paragraph 26, I suppose that we should go
21 back one page.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Yes.
23 JUDGE DELVOIE: And then turn to the next one.
24 MR. OLMSTED: There we are. 26. And it's actually at the end of
25 26. We see -- it just begins there. If we could turn to the next page
1 of the English.
2 Q. Now, Mr. Susa, according to this statement, Goran Hadzic
3 nominated Ilija Kojic for the position of minister of defence, a position
4 he held de facto since July 1991, and appointed Badza the SBWS TO
5 commander. That is correct isn't it, Mr. Susa?
6 A. That cannot be correct. The ministers were elected in
7 September 1991, not in July 1991.
8 Q. But if you heard what I read, it states that Ilija Kojic was
9 appointed or held the position de facto since July. De facto. Not
10 de jure. De facto, since July 1991. And that Hadzic nominated Kojic for
11 the position of minister of defence subsequently and, hence, on
12 25 September, he became minister of defence. But what I want to draw
13 your attention to is that, according to this statement, Hadzic appointed
14 Badza, the SBWS TO commander, and that is what I'm putting to you, that
15 that was the case.
16 A. Maybe you have such information, but I don't. I never saw that
17 decision or has it ever been published in the Official Gazette that
18 Mr. Stojicic had been appointed to this position. I'd like to see it.
19 And in this specific case, de facto and de jure cannot be different.
20 Because de facto, before September, there was no government whatsoever.
21 These things are obviously very unofficial. If we are talking about
22 anybody's position before September.
23 MR. OLMSTED: Let's take a look at 65 ter 1939.10. This is
24 tab 94. And this can be shown to the witness if ...
25 Q. And I'll draw your attention to the decision or the document
1 that's label -- numbered 54. And we see that this is --
2 MR. OLMSTED: If we could turn maybe to the second page of the
3 original so we can see who issued it. Of the original -- of the Serbian
4 language one. Yes.
5 Q. We see this is a demand from Goran Hadzic as -- well, he's the
6 one that issued this decision and it's a demand to the Serbian National
7 Assembly and it's dated 6 July 1991. And one of Mr. Hadzic's demands is
8 that the Srpska Krajina --
9 MR. ZIVANOVIC: Sorry, I see in the record document 54. But I
10 see -- oh, sorry. That's -- but I see on the screen 55. Of B/C/S. If
11 we could --
12 MR. OLMSTED: Let's please return -- I agree. Thank you,
13 Mr. Zivanovic. If we could turn back a page, there, to 54.
14 Q. We see that one of Mr. Hadzic's demands is that the Srpska
15 Krajina and the SBWS be annexed to the Republic of Serbia so that Serbia
16 could extend its Territorial Defence to all annexed territories.
17 Mr. Susa, although Serbia did not in 1991 annex the SBWS, it did
18 send its Serbian TO units to the SBWS; isn't that correct?
19 A. Even though I told you that I did not participate in any way in
20 the work of the Serbian National Council, you keep showing me decisions
21 of that body, which, as far as I'm concerned, did not have any particular
22 influence except that it created the Grand National Assembly. I don't
23 have any information and I don't want to misinform you.
24 The Serbian National Council, if it had been able to perform the
25 functions of a government, the government would never have been
1 established in the first place. For me, everything begins with my
2 election into that government. That's when I began living in that area.
3 I became familiar with that area then.
4 And you keep talking to me about the Serbian National Council.
5 Of course, I don't mind. You can discuss it with me like with anybody
6 else, but I don't have any particular knowledge about this. And I don't
7 even know if this had any effect to the person to whom it was sent.
8 Q. My question to you was: Were you aware that this -- the Republic
9 of Serbia sent Serbian TO units to the SBWS?
10 A. I learnt that later.
11 Q. And you were also aware that the Republic of Serbia sent
12 Radovan Stojicic to assist the SBWS government in organising its own
13 Territorial Defence; isn't that correct?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. And the SBWS government welcomed the assistance provided by both
16 the Serbian TO units as well as by Badza, didn't it?
17 A. Yes, certainly.
18 Q. Now, Goran Hadzic and Arkan had a good relationship in 1991,
19 didn't they?
20 A. Yes, they did.
21 Q. And you were aware that they very often -- or let me rephrase
22 that. You were aware that very often Arkan would supply security for
23 Mr. Hadzic when Mr. Hadzic would travel through the region where there
24 was potential conflict with enemy forces; correct?
25 A. I don't know if it was in that region, but Arkan definitely did
1 not provide security to Hadzic everywhere where he went. Arkan would
2 travel to Belgrade and Novi Sad where political talks --
3 THE INTERPRETER: Interpreter's correction: Hadzic travelled
4 mainly in the direction of Novi Sad and Belgrade for political
5 negotiations and talks, and Arkan definitely did not accompany him there.
6 Whether he travelled with him somewhere else, I don't know.
7 MR. OLMSTED:
8 Q. Well, let's turn to your Dokmanovic testimony. This is 1D2319,
9 page 51 of the e-court pages. You don't have this in front of you,
10 Mr. Susa, so don't bother looking at the document. And unfortunately, we
11 do not have a Serbian version of your transcript, but I'll read it to
12 you. This is on page 51.
13 You were speaking about Arkan and you say:
14 "His relationship with Mr. Hadzic was a good one and very often
15 he would give Mr. Hadzic -- he would supply security for Mr. Hadzic when
16 he would travel through the region where the contact with enemy forces,
17 hostile forces, was a daily occurrence."
18 You stand by that testimony, don't you, Mr. Susa?
19 A. Yes. But it's important how you interpret it. Let it remain the
20 way it is. However, as far as him accompanying Hadzic is concerned, it's
21 not something that I had direct knowledge about. I heard it from other
22 people. But I myself never travelled with them.
23 Q. You also knew that Arkan escorted Mr. Hadzic, in particular, when
24 Mr. Hadzic went in the directions of Mirkovci or Tenja; correct?
25 A. Possibly. But I have no first-hand knowledge of that. I'm again
1 telling you only what I heard from others. I was never with them, either
2 in Mirkovci or in Tenja.
3 MR. OLMSTED: I apologise to the usher, but if we could go back
4 to 65 ter 6686, and, again, this should not be shown to the witness or
5 the public. This time I'm interested in page 5, paragraph 14.
6 Q. And according to this statement:
7 "Goran Hadzic assigned the Erdut training centre to
8 Zeljko Raznjatovic, Arkan. I do not recall the exact date on which
9 Hadzic made this assignment, but it was before ... 2 October 1991 ... and
10 at the time when Hadzic as SBWS prime minister had the power to take this
11 decision. I believe it was in September 1991."
12 Now, regardless of whether the government approved the decision
13 ultimately, it was Mr. Hadzic who assigned the training centre to Arkan,
14 wasn't it?
15 A. I don't know whether he assigned it to him. But you obviously
16 are not aware of what the situation on the ground was like. Nobody
17 should have assigned this training centre to Arkan. Nobody needed to do
18 it. Arkan was sent there, and he was able to take whatever he wanted.
19 It didn't suit me personally that he took it.
20 Q. You allow for the possibility that Mr. Hadzic, in fact, did
21 assign that centre to Arkan; correct?
22 JUDGE DELVOIE: Mr. Zivanovic.
23 MR. ZIVANOVIC: It calls for speculation.
24 THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] The question arises how he did it.
25 In writing or orally. This decision did not go through the government.
1 MR. OLMSTED: Now, if we could look at P194.140. And this can be
2 shown to the witness and the public.
3 Q. And what I'm bringing up on the screen, Mr. Susa, is the
4 21 September 1991 order by Mr. Hadzic appointing Arkan commander of the
5 TO training centre which you looked at during direct examination.
6 A. My monitor is off.
7 Q. Yeah. And the usher will help you with that. I'm just laying
8 the foundation for you that this is the same order that you saw during
9 direct examination.
10 Now, Mr. Zivanovic drew your attention to the document index
11 number at the top, 1/91, and then he, if you may recall, showed you a
12 23 August 1991 proclamation of general mobilisation by Mr. Hadzic that
13 had the same index number. Do you recall that?
14 A. I remember.
15 MR. OLMSTED: If we could now turn to P196.140. This is tab 297.
16 Q. Now, this is a 2nd October 1991 decision by Mr. Hadzic regarding
17 the temporary transfer of assets. This decision, if you look at the
18 upper left-hand corner, contains the same index number, 1/91. So,
19 Mr. Susa, it appears that this same index number was used in August,
20 September, and October 1991; correct?
21 A. That's how it should be although bodies are very different.
22 Q. But all three of these documents were issued by Mr. Hadzic;
24 A. I'm not sure about that.
25 Q. Well, we'll let the documents reflect that for themselves.
1 MR. OLMSTED: If we could look at L57. This is tab 34. And if
2 we could turn to page 12 of the English, page 3 of the original.
3 Q. Now, this is the decision establishing the secretariat of the
4 SBWS government. And if we look under Article 4, we see that within the
5 government secretariat there are three offices, including the office of
6 the prime minister. And if you could take look at Article 7, the head of
7 the office of the prime minister shall manage the work of the office and
8 shall be answerable to the prime minister.
9 Now, who was the head of the office of the prime minister of --
10 in the secretariat?
11 A. He was elected sometime in December that year. I see in my
12 mind's eye the picture of that man, but I can't remember the name. It
13 wasn't Jovan Pejakovic, of course.
14 Q. Well, this decision was issued fairly early on. It was issued on
15 the 30th of August, 1991. Who performed the role within the secretariat
16 as head of the office of the prime minister until December 1991?
17 A. As far as I know, there was no chef de cabinet until December.
18 Oh, the name is Zrilic. He was the first chef de cabinet and head of
19 protocol. That was in the winter of that year.
20 Q. And until that happened, Jovan Pejakovic wore several hats, if
21 you will. He was both the secretariat of the government and he assisted
22 Mr. Hadzic with managing the office of the prime minister, didn't he?
23 A. The head of government did not have any office. Mr. Pejakovic
24 was just the secretary of the government, and even that was too much for
1 Q. Now, returning to the SBWS Territorial Defence, or, as you would
2 like to call them, the village guard. You and the other government
3 ministers were aware that members of the Territorial Defence were
4 mistreating non-Serbs in the villages; correct?
5 A. In those places where there were village guards at the outset,
6 those were mainly majority Serb villages, and they didn't have occasion
7 to stop anyone. They were just defending themselves, and that's the
8 truth about that.
9 MR. OLMSTED: Well, if we could have 1D2319 on the screen.
10 Q. This is again your testimony from Dokmanovic. And I'm interested
11 in page 44. You testified:
12 "Sometimes, unfortunately, that Territorial Defence would
13 mistreat the villagers in the given village -- or given villages."
14 You stand by that testimony, don't you, Mr. Susa?
15 A. Their villagers. The same villagers who elected them to that
16 position, not Croats. That's what I meant.
17 Q. They were mistreating the remaining Croats in those villages,
18 weren't they, Mr. Susa?
19 A. Well, I have no specific information about that. It's just an
20 assumption. When such people are concerned, they most often don't
21 discriminate in whom they stop.
22 MR. OLMSTED: Let's look at L1. This is tab 31. And if we could
23 turn to page 62 of the English, page 20 of the original.
24 Q. I want to draw your attention to the decision on the SBWS
25 Territorial Defence joining the SFRY armed forces. This decision, which,
1 I believe, you did look at during direct examination, states that:
2 "The SBWS TO is hereby joining with the SFRY armed forces and
3 becoming part of it."
4 Now, under the SFRY Law on All People's Defence, the term "armed
5 forces" had a particular meaning, didn't it?
6 A. Yes. We defined that meaning in such a way as to attach the
7 Territorial Defence to the armed forces, and the Army of the FRY accepted
9 Q. Well, under Article 91 -- and we can call this up if you'd like.
10 MR. OLMSTED: It's L10, tab 2, page 59 of the English, page 16 of
11 the original.
12 Q. Under Article 91, the armed forces comprised of two separate
13 components. You had the JNA, and then as a second component, you had the
14 Territorial Defence; correct?
15 A. Maybe that was true of the territory of the Federal Republic of
16 Yugoslavia in the part that was not affected by war. Yes, but the answer
17 is yes, the way it's written in the law.
18 Q. And under the law, the JNA and the Territorial Defence had their
19 separate chains of command which reported up to the SFRY Presidency,
20 didn't it?
21 A. I repeat: When there are no conditions of a state of war, like
22 here. When imminent threat of war is declared, then the Territorial
23 Defence places itself under the command of the armed forces. In this
24 case, the JNA.
25 Q. Well, Mr. Susa, that applies if there is an order to
1 resubordinate the Territorial Defence unit to a unit within the JNA,
2 isn't that correct? You needed an order to resubordinate it for the
3 purposes -- for the purposes of combat operations. Isn't that correct?
4 A. We did on our part what we were asked to, what we were expected
5 to. I don't know anything about any additional order, if it existed, but
6 this worked. The units were resubordinated to the JNA, and the JNA
7 commanded them.
8 Q. We'll come back to what happened in reality. But I want to focus
9 just on the legal issue here.
10 Now, under the law - and this did not make any difference
11 regardless of what state existed at the time - the republics and the
12 autonomous regions had considerable autonomy over their Territorial
13 Defence as far as managing them, organising them, and supplying them.
14 Isn't that correct?
15 A. I think you are wrong, as far as the state of war and peace is
16 concerned. Or imminent threat of war, which we discussed.
17 If you had given me this law over the weekend, I would have
18 compiled a couple of comments to clarify this. Peacetime and imminent
19 threat of war are divided by a gulf of differences and things work quite
20 differently under these two sets of circumstances.
21 Q. Under the law, under the SFRY law that existed at the time, the
22 republics and the autonomous regions had considerable autonomy over the
23 management of their Territorial Defence organisations, didn't they?
24 A. Correct, yes. In peacetime, that is so.
25 Q. Placing the SBWS TO within the SFRY armed forces would not
1 automatically subordinate them to the JNA but, rather, it would make them
2 equivalent to a republican or autonomous region Territorial Defence;
3 isn't that correct?
4 A. You are giving an interpretation of your own. I don't think it's
5 the way it is.
6 Q. Well, if the intent was to place the SBWS TO under the JNA, the
7 9 October 1991 decision that we just looked at would have used the term
8 "JNA," but it didn't, did it? It used the term "armed forces."
9 A. I think that was correct. As for this decision taken by the
10 Grand National Assembly, Mr. Koncarevic and a group of his assistants
11 worked together with the Federal Secretariat for National Defence. If
12 they allowed certain flaws in their work, I couldn't change it, and I
13 can't comment on it now.
14 MR. OLMSTED: Your Honours, this would be a good time to stop.
15 JUDGE DELVOIE: Thank you.
16 Mr. Susa, it is 2.00. That means the end of the hearing today.
17 We'll expect you to be back tomorrow morning at 9.00, and in the
18 meantime, you remain a witness.
19 Court adjourned.
20 [The witness stands down]
21 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 1.59 p.m.,
22 to be reconvened on Tuesday, the 14th day of
23 October, 2014, at 9.00 a.m.